Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site t4test.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!intelca!t4test!chip From: chip@t4test.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Re: How do Unix and VMS compare? Message-ID: <679@t4test.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 15:21:45 EDT Article-I.D.: t4test.679 Posted: Mon Jun 18 15:21:45 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Jun-84 01:12:50 EDT References: <290@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP>, <666@t4test.UUCP> <3440@brl-vgr.ARPA> Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 60 === REFERENCED ARTICLE ============================================= From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) I think you got the bit about VMS emulators on UNIX wrong. Clearly, if VMS has a larger software base (as you claim), then there would be motivation for VMS-on-UNIX, but this is the opposite of the argument you gave for there not being one. VMS doesn't matter in the big picture; it runs only on not- very-cost-competitive DEC VAX processors. UNIX runs practically everywhere. If Fortran is your bag, certainly there are fast Fortrans available on various vendors' UNIX systems. Shop around. ==================================================================== In my original followup I tried to make the point that in nearly all applications, computers are purchased to run specific software which is targeted at specific needs. I also hoped to convey that these needs must be considered before any others a potential machine or operating system may be considered. I also aired my opinion that VMS has a wider software base than Unix--I don't have any firm statistics to back that up. A premise which I took for granted and maybe I shouldn't have was that it always takes some degree of work to port software into an emulator environment. At least, that is what our experiences say. As a result, I reached the conclusion that there is a greater need to be able to run in a native VMS environment than a native Unix environment. Combine this conclusion with the idea that it is much nicer for the user to talk to Unix than VMS, you come up with explanation why there is need for a Unix emulator to run under VMS, but not vice versa. The one exception to the above would be that the amount of software which requires a VMS environment is minimal, and therefore its porting into a VMS-emulator-under-Unix would not be too dificult. In this case one would be willing to deal with the pain of the portation to gain the benefits of true Unix. If the production of Intel's microprocessors matters "in the big picture," then VMS does as well. VMS is a prerequisite to our ability to develop component tests. If you would like some additional examples where VMS matters, tune in net.physics. There are some folks over there knocking down Unix for their specific applications, one of which is the ability to run Fortran. Again, it is entirely reasonable to get into theoretical comparisons of VMS against Unix. (I'd vote for Unix.) But when it comes to shelling out the bucks, you'd better look at what you want that computer to do first. -- Chip Rosenthal, Intel/Santa Clara {idi|intelca|icalqa|imcgpe|kremvax|qubix|ucscc}!t4test!{chip|news} Any resemblance between the author and persons living or dead is entirely coincidental.