Help us defend against VMS!

[John Sloan]

in article <310 at nancy.UUCP>, mcpherso at msudoc.ee.mich-state.edu (Mike McPherson) says:
> Xref: wright comp.unix.wizards:5993 comp.os.vms:5749
> 
> Can we *please* stop the UNIX vs. VMS argument.  We have both, we like
> both.

Perhaps I had better make my position clear, Mike.

_We_ also have both Unix and VMS. I like both, and think each has its
strengths and weaknesses, and areas of appropriate application. I
happen to prefer Unix over anything I've ever used before since I
started programming around 1970 (DOS/VS, OS/{MFT,MVT,SVS,MVS} on the
IBM mainframe side, VMS since 2.x on the VAX side, INTERCOM/SCOPE on
CDC Cybers, RSX and RT-11 on PDP-11s. CP/M in the Z80/S-100 days,
CP/M-68K, MS/DOS, etc. as well as lots of Unixes), but that is a
personal preference, as in politics, sex and religion, and arguments
about any of these often generates more heat than light.

I push Unix not for religious reasons but for purely economic ones.
I am responsible for the deployment of systems and networks and for
the management of what is arguably the largest computer center in our
University (a matter of some dispute). I simply can not afford to deploy
VAXen. I think VAXen are well designed, reliable machines. But I know,
based on the numbers I see on the paperwork that crosses my desk, that I
can provide more cost-effective computing by buying machines from Sun,
Encore, NCR, H-P, what-have-you, than I can from DEC (or IBM for that
matter). When I say "cost effective", I'm taking more than just the
initial capital investment into account. It is my job to worry about
retraining, reliability, power requirements, air conditioning
requirements, compatibility, interoperability, maintenance,
availability, expandability, preservation of existing investment, and
a whole host of other "-ilities".

Most of all, I worry about labor costs, because they are the highest of
any of the costs I worry about: [1] the cost of my systems staff
supporting a wide variety of machines in what is necessarily a
multi-vendor environment, and [2] the cost of retraining users. "Users"
includes graduate students who must be productive, because they're
working on grant-funded projects with deadlines; and faculty researchers
who we cannot afford to pay $40K-$70K a year to learn a new operating
system and a new editor every time we deploy a new engine.

When I look at capital costs, I see a whole lotta engines that are more
cost effective than VAXen. And when I look at labor costs, I see an
operating system that runs on a wide variety of machines, minimizing my
costs for retraining my labor force.

And when I look very very carefully, I notice to my delight that these
cost effective machines just happen to all run this same operating
system. Amazing!

I have two VAXen, a 750 and a 785. I could not do with out them. But
I could not have afforded to buy them, either. I inherited each,
because, bless its heart, our industry provides absolutely no meaningful
resale value on these machines, so usually they're cheaper to keep than
to sell. Maintenance costs may shortly make that strategy invalid as
well; I am on the verge of showing it's cheaper to replace our VAXen
with Suns configured as timesharing engines, than to pay the maintenance
costs over the expected remaining live cycle of these machines.

It is not a matter of religion, Mike. It's a matter of money. And
although if I am to believe what I read lately, that there is more than
a tenuous connection between religion and money, at least here at my
University in my Department, there is a clear cut strategy for
providing adequate computing resources.

-- 
John Sloan                     	 Wright State University Research Center
CSNET: jsloan at SPOTS.Wright.Edu  3171 Research Blvd., Kettering, OH 45420
UUCP: ...!cbosgd!wright!jsloan           (513) 259-1384   (513) 873-2491
Logical Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.