Linked by znby on Mon 10th Jun 2013 23:15 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes "HP has announced the end of support for OpenVMS, the ancient but trustworthy server operating system whose creator went on to build Windows NT. OpenVMS started out as VAX/VMS on Digital Equipment Corporation's VAX minicomputers, then later was ported to DEC's fast Alpha RISC chips " before the Compaq acquisition of Digital led to their untimely demise. HP ported the software to the Itanium, but HP isn't going to bother moving to the last generation of IA64 and support will finally end in 2015." The article seems to have confused the end of support of VMS (which projected to happen some time after December 2020) with the end of IA64 sales for machines that support VMS and/or the end of support of the Alpha version of the operating system, but it seems either way that the venerable operating system is on its way to meeting the same fate as MPE.
Thread beginning with comment 564499
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's still my favourite O/S
by uridium on Wed 12th Jun 2013 02:54 UTC
uridium
Member since:
2009-08-20

HP has pretty much ignored VMS since they acquired it via Compaq so this is deeply saddening but to be expected. They've killed through mis-management and lack of advertising and programs to encourage it's use VMS, Tru64 and in the process killed two of my favorite CPU ISA's of Alpha and PA-Risc.

The port to IA64 proved that it could be ported to hardware that didn't require the extensive memory/priv execution that VAX had (read: IA64 hasn't got the facilities) so it should have been ported to x86, restricted to 1 or 2 processors so people could start hacking around on it. This is how UNIX beats things.. availability to students at universities and colleges. They have it at Uni/Tafe .. they come out into the workforce and are already sufficiently familiar with one tool that will help their work and recommend it strongly.

HP failed here when they didn't make it available any more for entry level people.

It's almost criminal.. if you've spent any time with the OS coding on it and have learned some of it's architecture, it really has many strengths you simply don't find anywhere else.

HP had something great ... and they ignored it.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

if you've spent any time with the OS coding on it and have learned some of it's architecture, it really has many strengths you simply don't find anywhere else.


for example?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

" if you've spent any time with the OS coding on it and have learned some of it's architecture, it really has many strengths you simply don't find anywhere else.


for example?
"
For example unprecedented stability and clustering. I have worked in large companies with large servers lot of people use all the time, and the sysadmins there thinks that Unix is unstable in comparison with OpenVMS. Linux is unstable compared to Unix. OpenVMS clusters are the best on the planet. You can mix different OS versions, and even different cpu architectures in a cluster, and up to 144 servers. OpenVMS servers measure uptimes in decades. Lastly I heard of a OpenVMS server with uptime of 17 years. OpenVMS clusters never fail, because if a server goes down, the rest are up. And a OpenVMS server never goes down. Some say that single OpenVMS servers are more reliable than IBM Mainframes. OpenVMS clusters are definitely more reliablie than Mainframes. Lot of finance and telco used to run OpenVMS. For instance, when 9/11, the OpenVMS clusters never missed a transaction when the servers in the twin towers went down.

OpenVMS > everything else when we talk about stability and reliability. And OpenVMS clusters are way more powerful. Like Google, that use lot of cheap servers to get high uptime in total. The difference is that single OpenVMS servers have brutal high uptime, and the clusters have even better uptime.

Unix uptime sux in comparison. Linux uptime sux in comparison to Unix. Windows uptime sux in comparison to Linux.

The OpenVMS servers did not have that extreme performance, but extreme RAS instead (reliability, availability and serviciabilty).

There where two big OSes differently architected: Unix vs VMS. Some say that Unix sux in comparison to VMS, when you study them closer. Unix is considered more fancy, and VMS just works. Large finance companies prefers stability to extreme performance, because Enterprise is conservative. When performance is enough, you dont need more. Most servers have enough performance. They just have to work. Like bank systems, they need to be up, no matter what. You never over clock such servers, they are using double and triple hardware to ensure uptime.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: It's still my favourite O/S
by Vanders on Wed 12th Jun 2013 09:29 in reply to "It's still my favourite O/S"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

HP has pretty much ignored VMS since they acquired it via Compaq so this is deeply saddening but to be expected. They've killed through mis-management and lack of advertising and programs to encourage it's use VMS, Tru64 and in the process killed two of my favorite CPU ISA's of Alpha and PA-Risc.

HP didn't kill VMS, the market did. No one wanted it, apart from the US government and some banks. The world belongs to *nix and Windows; that market reality was already well entrenched by the time HP bought Compaq.

While we're here, Alpha was killed by Compaq, again before HP bought them.

Disclaimer: I work for HP (but am not anything to do with OpenVMS)

Reply Parent Score: 4

voidlogic Member since:
2005-09-03

I think HP killing off PA-RISC was its big mistake though.

IBM does quite well with AIX/Linux machines running POWER CPUs and HP could be competing in that space with HP-UX/Linux on PA-RISC. Betting on IA64 was a poor choice, but I don't blame HP for that as Intel of course made the same bet. But at least Intel saw the daylight breaking through the clouds almost a decade ago and re-focused on amd64 *cough* I mean x86-64.

Reply Parent Score: 1