Slashdot Mirror


First OpenVMS Boot On IA64

vaxzilla writes "At 3:31pm EST on Friday, January 31st, 2003, OpenVMS for the Intel IA64 architecture successfully booted and ran a DIR command. The Intel Itanium family of processors is the third architecture supported by OpenVMS in its 25 year history. Originally it ran on Digital Equipment Corporation VAX systems; in the early 1990s, support was added for the DEC Alpha processors. Following the acquisition of DEC by Compaq, and more recently Compaq by HP, the Itanium and Itanium2 port of OpenVMS is now being undertaken by HP. Congratulations on a job well done to the folks at ZK03 in Nashua, NH!"

7 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Modern VMS applications? by diamond0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it's present in some legacy systems, and supported by Compaq for that reason. But why would we want VMS on new hardware? What new stuff runs on VMS these days?

    --

    --
    There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
    1. Re:Modern VMS applications? by moertle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i know a company that is always making incremental upgrades to their 'legacy' software to take full advantage of newer hardware. it also allows them to do things like consalidate 5 old machines into 1 new machine with 20x the power so there are cycles to spare.

      --
      I hold a patent on sigs...
  2. Re: Reasons to use VMS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Interesting


    > but is OpenVMS really good for anything _new_ today?

    The answer to your question is cultural rather than technical. VMS is a superb OS, but it is now viewed as déclassé in most circles, so it only has a thin slice of mindshare. That's not really any more a reflection on it than the thin slice of mindshare given to some very excellent programming languages.

    I more than half wish the OSS revolution had centered around VMS rather than UNIX. There's not the slightest reason we couldn't be doing all the things we do under VMS... except the "price architecture". Put a free+open version on x86 and Linux might have some hot competition.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. Very cool.. wish I still cared about VMS by unfortunateson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I grew up on VAX/VMS at school after a highschool exposure to (and part-time job thru the college years using) PDP-11s.

    Compared to the various dialects of unix, the VMS environment was so much friendlier and forgiving... I'm only now realizing how much my hands were in mittens using it. I'd still prefer a system that wasn't so case-sensitive.

    The chief engineers behind VMS then went to work at Micro$oft to develop NT, so some of the legacy is still there: expensive process starts, but a nice memory model to work with.

    Strengths:
    Linkers in the early 80s that were easy to cross languages in a single project
    A powerful set of run-time libraries, including some excellent flatfile databases
    A scripting language that had access to a nice library of "lexical" functions.

    But like I said, I wish I still cared. While we still have Alphas around running openVMS at the office, I haven't logged onto one for about three years. Somewhere, I have a huge library of shell routines, login scripts, and ancient forms-oriented code.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  4. Re:Open? by pesc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Digital marketeers changed the name from VMS to OpenVMS when the OS got its POSIX branding. The funny thing is that VMS got it before most UNIX systems did.

    In those days, there was a lot of fuzz among customers about the need to buy "open" systems and not "proprietary" ones, (meaning that VMS was proprietary and Solaris or HP-UX were open). That's why Digital felt POSIX branding was a good thing.

    Then the customers bought lots of M$ Windows stuff instead; so much for wanting "open" systems!

    Another fact: VMS came with source code from the start! On microfiche. Not so that you could recompile the OS, but rather learn about it, check bugs, etc.

    --

    )9TSS
  5. Re:Reasons to use VMS by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where I work, we use VMS. Sadly it's going away. But, I do have some really cool storie that my boss passed along to me about his experiences with VMS back in the 80s. He worked at a bank where they had a support group for the two different systems they supported. There was the Wang support group and the VMS support group. The Wang support group was made up of 100+ people who were on call 24/7 and were generally in the offices. The VMS support group was... 1 person. Also on call 24/7, but only ever needed to be there during normal work hours becasuse the system "just worked". I've seen the same thing where I work now. We are moving to HP's Unix and most of the VMS guys are dreading it. Even though I love UNIX and Linux, I have to say that VMS is a lot heartier and very easy to support. To be honest, if DEC/Compaq/HP had been smart, they could have had a great competitor to Windows in the server market if they kept the GUI up to date. Hopefully, someone will port Gnome to it and get it to have a bit more of a modern feel for the server monkeys.

  6. Re:Open? by snStarter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And you could buy a source license for the OS as well so you could modify the OS if you had sufficient skill.

    Much of VMS was written in BLISS-32 whose back-end produced fantastic code - sure it was code no human being would have written - but damn good code just the same.

    Being able to pull out the microfiche and check out the BLISS source was often useful when learning to program deep into the OS.

    Not to mention the DECUS meetings where you could talk to the developers. I can remember the meeting in LA when at a small session DEC and the guys from MIT revealed the 782 - assymmetric multi-processing. It was exciting stuff. DEC had some really good engineers.

    Remember - the VAX was about the ultimate CISC processor. Memory was scarce in those days - having 64MB of RAM was a big deal! The processor was very efficient in the use of memory.