OpenVMS Hobbyist License Question

From: Jerome Fine <jhfine_at_idirect.com>
Date: Thu Nov 2 20:25:22 2000

>Zane H. Healy wrote:

> >Just for fun I figured I'd give Compaq a call (1-800-DIGITAL still
> >works!) and get pricing information on the latest VAX OpenVMS software
> >releases. Just the VAX OpenVMS 7.2-1 software and online documentation
> >kit (something like 10 CDs, order number QA-XULAA-H8) is $314.00.
> >I imagine the current ConDist is proportionally expensive. Ouch.
> That's not even the Condist. That's just the OS, and a couple extra items.
> I don't think it's anywhere near that many CD's.

Jerome Fine replies:

If you think that is bad, try the full distribution of V5.07 of RT-11 which
Mentec and Compaq/DEC still sell at $ US 1600.00 with the Qbus license
on top of that for about $ US 900 and again that is just the operating
system. Part of the answer might be that the DOCs are still all in paper.
Also, I suspect that DEC still has the copyright on the V5.06 DOC set
which could account for the most significant portion of the $ US 1600.00,
but those DOCs are mostly over 10 years old with the 1992 V5.06 being
mostly a new combination of the material into more and smaller manuals.

> OpenVMS VAX Software Layered Products Library Package
> QA-5G88A-H8 $1,070.00
>
> OpenVMS VAX Software Layered Products and Operating System Library Package
> QA-YL48A-H8 $1,258.00
>
> The prices for Alpha is the same. I don't have the info handy on the hard
> doc's, but when I ordered my Base set of 7.2 doc's (about 14 manuals) I
> think it was around $200, the full set I think is around $1400. I'm
> currently saving my penny's for when 7.3 is released as I'm going to want
> to pick up the full doc set this time.
>
> A good kit for hobbyists is the following:
> OpenVMS Version 7.3-EFT1 Software Developers' Kit
> QA-MT3AD-H8 $40.00

Of course, FORTRAN and C are extra. There is no dBase - use RDB!
No decent word processor, etc. Not even a decent editor like EVE/TPU
on VMS although probably KED has a few things. So save your pennies.

Incidentally, I am finally looking seriously at Y2K patches for the hobby V5.03
of RT-11, but if possible I would like to go much further - up to Y10K if
possible. I have not yet determined if it is even technically feasible to
predict when the Gregorian Modification (only century years divisible by
400 are leap years) will not only break down, but do so in a manner which
is not predictable. Now this will not happen until after year 4000 C.E.
(Gregorian), so I would appreciate some feedback, not only from RT-11
hobby users, but also from the general list! Does anyone feels that if Y2K
patches are being done for an operating system and the code can be
extended up to the year 9999 C.E., should I just ignore the problems
associated with too many leap years being present. Note that this affects
just two areas. The rollover of a day from February 28th to the next
day when the year is a century year divisible by 400. Also, if the banner
in MACRO is displaying the date and time, the day of the week is also
displayed, as is the day of the week displayed in LINK and LIBR.

One solution is to just ignore the problem. It is also possible to make
a reasonable attempt which can probably be done up to at least 6000 C.E.
Most likely, just omit the leap years at 4000 C.E. and 6000 C.E.,
but it might be necessary to omit additional leap years between 4000 C.E.
and 6000 C.E.

The final possibility is to allow the user to have a table to schedule the
omitted leap years. Is anyone familiar with leap seconds in VMS at the
end of June and December? A current best estimate table could be set
up and the user could modify it when corrections are available sometime
in the next 2000 years. I realize that this latter part is quite off-topic
on a relative basis and I apologize, but V5.03 is from 1985 and needs
at least the Y2K patches for hobby users now. I can't see a better time
to extend the Y2K code all the way to Y10K if any extension beyond
2099 C.E. is being considered. The extra effort to do the work is
probably much less than the effort to solve the associated technical
problems and even both should no more than double the total work
of just the Y2K patches by themselves if it is all being done at the same
time. It would really be appreciated if anyone who is reading this
would at least take a minimum couple of minutes to express their
opinion on the issue. Thanks in advance if you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least this OFF TOPIC is actually very serious, at least it is to
many of us even though we will not be around to check on the
results. But, is not one of the primary goals of preservation to
save both hardware and software to be around to be used in the
future. What better method can be found than to ensure that
when the current Y2K patches, put out for only commercial
users of V5.07 of RT-11, expire AND few, if any experts
are still around to make additional bug fixes, RT-11 will be
all ready to continue far into the future without any changes.

I agree that there probably will not be any hardware to run
PDP-11 software, but perhaps. After all, they are still looking
at and attempting to understand languages that are 3000 years
old, why not RT-11, especially if someone took the trouble to
allow the then current year to be entered - or at least the
equivalent date on the assumption the calendar will probably
not last that long in any case. Besides, it really would be a lot
of fun.

Sincerely yours,

Jerome Fine
Received on Thu Nov 02 2000 - 20:25:22 GMT