Conference 7.286::digital

    But seriously though, this is a fascinating question -- sure to elicit
    some informed opinion as well as scrape at some festering sores.  It
    should be an informative string, at least as long as it doesn't
    degenerate into OS wars, that is...
    
    As one who's about to order a workstation for my office and has the
    choice of going with the department-standard VAXstation or being kind
    of locally iconoclastic with a DECstation, I have a user-level
    corollary of .0 to deal with.
    
    IMHO if you want GENERAL skills marketability I'd go with the U*IX
    support or usage choice.  But that's not the question that .0 asked, is
    it...
    
    But it's certainly a good thing that DIGITAL values the difference
    between VMS and U*IX!!

Know both (he said, glibly).

    I'm someone who's worked with VMS for 9 years, I'm now reading 'UNIX
    for VMS users' and in addition to a VS3100M48, now have access to a 
    DECstation 2100 (I know, a turtle compared to a 5000, but good for
    learning).  I agree with .2 - know some of both, and MS/DOS as well.
    
    Being in sales support I'm constantly asked the question 'Which
    platform - MS/DOS, VMS or UN*X is best for my application'  - and, in
    all reality there are 'requirement mixes' that are better suited to
    MS/DOS and/or UN*X than VMS, so know all 3!  Open Computing, contrary
    to simplifying things only complicates them even more....

    An observation.....
    
    The problem of going with U**x is knowing *which* proprietary open
    system one should align oneself with! (-;
    
    JK

    re: .0 (Go for VMS or UN*X?)
    
    Veerry interesting question indeed.
    
    In fact, I asked this question of a few people (including management
    and consultants) in order to understand what might be needed to become
    an EIS Consultant I (I am currently an EIS SW Specialist 4).
    
    The information I received was consistent from all sources: we have
    a "business need" for UN*X consultants in the future; there is not a
    strong perceived need for VMS consultants.
    
    And, to the individual who replied "know both", that simply won't do
    (as far as an EIS consultant is concerned).  A consultant is supposed
    to be specialized, and knowing multiple disciplines is to your
    DETRIMENT professionally (don't ask me why -- it's what I've been told by
    management; one reason why I fear I have little hope of promotion in
    the near future is that I have an aversion to "forgetting" what I've
    learned so that I may be perceived as sufficiently "specialized" to
    deserve promotion).
    
    From what I've been told, I'd suggest you go UN*X.  But I'd suggest you
    talk with your District Manager (or equivalent) to determine what is
    seen as "goodness" for your career.
    
    -- Russ

    Do both! But realize that you can't become and bonfide "guru" in
    everything. However you can only enhance your career (and help DEC) by
    learning and doing more. I don't consider myself a guru with either VMS
    or ULTRIX. However, I have taken enough training with each over the
    years to fell comfortable at building systems from scratch, installing
    products and using them, and doing routine maintenance and diagnostics.
    
    I have this little saying that I believe in heartedly:
    
         "To survive within DEC (or in the industry in general) technically
    oriented people must eliminate their technological bigotries".
    
    If you don't do this you may find your area of expertise outdated
    rather rapidly these days.
    
    Gene.

I go along with the other people here:  know both, as well as MS/DOS.

But I do have a few other comments:

1) The advent of ALPHA does not change your position in any way.  Even after
   ALPHA starts shipping, the VAX and MIPS lines will still be around in
   large volumes, running VMS and ULTRIX for a long time.  (There is no
   secret about that.  Look how many PDP-11's we shipped even this year.)

2) You talked about "longevity in Digital".  That is all well and good, but
   in these uncertain times, it is a bad assumption that you will stay with
   Digital forever.  The industry, like it or not (and I *HATE* it) is going
   some flavor of UNIX.  Call it ULTRIX, call it OSF/1, even call it SUN/OS, 
   it is fundamentally all UNIX.  Therefore, if you are considering long-term
   career objectives, learn UNIX.

   (And before the VMS types get out their scalpels to start ripping my
   statement apart, note that I speak as a person who *LOVES* VMS, a person
   who *UNALTERABLY AND TOTALLY DESPISES EVERYTHING ABOUT UNIX*, but also
   as one who recognizes the juggernaut that UNIX is in the industry.  I
   have been on VMS since V1.5, developing bundled and layered products for
   it since 1979, and am now a VMS Partner in the field.  But being in the
   field I have to note that as big a market force as VMS is, and as technically
   superior to UNIX as it is, UNIX is bigger and will stay that way.  That
   is why I have and continue to train in-depth on both ULTRIX and MS/DOS.
   I discount OS/2 because I believe that IBM missed the boat on that one).

RE: .5
    
>    The information I received was consistent from all sources: we have
>    a "business need" for UN*X consultants in the future; there is not a
>    strong perceived need for VMS consultants.

I hope that you mean "we have a 'business need' for MORE U*IX consultants
in the future; there is not a strong perceived need for MORE VMS consultants".
I can only speak for my section of the field, but here we need VMS consultants
and we generally have them available.  But we also have a need for U*IX 
consultants and they are generally not available.

>    And, to the individual who replied "know both", that simply won't do
>    (as far as an EIS consultant is concerned).  A consultant is supposed
>    to be specialized, and knowing multiple disciplines is to your
>    DETRIMENT professionally (don't ask me why -- it's what I've been told by
>    management; one reason why I fear I have little hope of promotion in
>    the near future is that I have an aversion to "forgetting" what I've
>    learned so that I may be perceived as sufficiently "specialized" to
>    deserve promotion).
    
That may be the way it is in EIS, but in Sales Support (or whatever name we
have this week) the more things I know, the less cost my District has to
incur for plane tickets, hotels, and meals for outside consultants.  My
management considers this significant goodness.

All of this of course is IMHO, and your mileage may vary.

-- Ken Moreau

    At last an interesting and related to "working in DIGITAL" topic!
    
    From my support unit manager's point of view:
    (There are U**X, VMS, RSX .... engineers in this unit)
    
    VMS to U**X conversion should be treated as "long term" plan
    and can depend largely on your own preferences, age, wish
    to change job, company..... etc..
    As a "owner" of VMS resources I have no problem to "sell"
    them today, tomorrow, day after tomorrow....
    If you like VMS, progress in VMS for the next years to come,
    but keep a "casual eye" on other Technology.
    The quantitive need for VMS will diminish, but the good
    expertise will become very expensive!
    
    If you are in more "mature" Technology (PDP's) and want
    to learn new stuff, go U**X (or PC stuff). It's easier
    than to transition out of VMS.
    By the way the (ex)Customer Services "ULTRIX Services
    University" is EXCELLENT to accomplish the first (giant)
    step towards ULTRIX !
    
    On the other end, with PDP (RSX, RSTS...) expertise we
    are already at a point where it is rare and valuable.
    It just happens that many (leading, rather "managing")
    folks in DEC haven't realized this yet. This causes
    a few (many) PDP experts wishing to change Technology
    in "panic" mode, where there is no (objective business)
    reason to panic. 
    
    U**X expertise is of course rare and valuable. Will it be
    the same 2 years from now ?
    
    My recommendation:
    
    -Try to the best in what you like the most.
    -Check the market window of "what you like the most"
    -Compare with your own career plan
    -Adust if necessary (either expectations or development)
    -repeat all above until retirement
    
    /fred

    re: .6
    
    >However you can only enhance your career (and help DEC) by
    >learning and doing more. 
    
    I have always believed this.  However, the prevailing winds in my area
    seem to believe that an EIS Consultant cannot hold a significant depth
    of knowledge in one area (a specialty) while retaining significant
    information in other areas as well.
    
    I was a Project Leader for a database system for a Digital OEM.  I have
    a keen interest in VMS internals.  I used to have a good knowledge of
    RSTS/E internals.  I have always been good at high-speed production of
    high-quality software.  I know several languages and have written a few
    languages of my own over the years.  I know quite a bit about VMS
    system management and cluster management.  I have a reasonable knowledge
    (although spotty in parts) of networking.  I have a knowledge of MS-DOS,
    some Ultrix, and PostScript.  I love technical challenges.
    
    According to what I've been told by my management, it appears that I 
    have less chance of becoming a Consultant than someone with only good
    Ultrix and marginal programming skills.
    
    I can understand that a Consultant should have a definite speciality.
    I have difficulty with the notion that a Consultant should not have a
    broad spectrum of knowledge as well.
    
    re: .later, about VMS
    
    The message I've received from my management is clear.  There is no
    perceived business need for additional VMS consultants (we only have
    one VMS consultant that I can think of).  The list of "hot" specialties
    in our District includes UN*X, databases, networking, imaging, systems
    integration and one or two other items which I can't remember off hand.
    
    Note as well that during the EIS downsizing, "only knowing VMS" could
    possibly put you out of a job.  This is NOT a "safe" specialty in EIS
    our area, IMHO.  I hope it's not true elsewhere.
    
    -- Russ

    Good information in the previous notes, but here is an interesting
    point: When I look around I see a real quest (in sales support) for
    U*IX expertise desired, if not longed for. But, I have noticed that in
    terms of recognition that the VMS folks are much advanced. I have seen
    U*IX people sitting idle for days while the VMS support folks never
    seen to have any idle time.
    
    Now, looking at previous TFSO's, I see many more U*IX folks getting it
    than the VMS folks. Why? I can name 3 U*IX partners that got TFSO'd and
    no one said a word. One VMS partner gets it and the world stops. Why
    again?
    
    Many districts (at least the 3 I have been involved with) keep telling
    us to specialize. No, wait a minute, be a generalist. Hold on
    Babalouie, we need specialists. Etc... It is very confusing to say the
    least.
    

    re: .9
    
    I sympathsize with EIS constraints. It seems little or no time is
    allocated for training or in some cases re-training. I am in sales
    support and, at least for the time being, training can still be had if
    it is justified.
    
    re: .10
    
    Locally specialization is the word of the week. Being classified as a
    generalist may very well get you thrown out the door during the next
    purge. We had a regional sales VP visit a couple of weeks ago. We were
    told that if he (the VP) should stop you in the hallway and ask what
    your specialization was you had better have a good answer. That kind of
    nonsense reminds of my days in the military when some general or
    admiral was coming for a visit and the crap was about knee deep.

    The Generalist vs Specialist approach gets my goat.  The fact of the
    matter is that the people who "assume" that a generalist is more
    shallow than a specialist are so shallow that they can't tell the
    difference unless the subject informs them.  So don't!
    
    Recommendation:
    
    	Don't advertise as a UN*X or VMS or any other type of guru!
    	Decide the kind of career you want, the organizational path you
    	need to follow to obtain it.  Learn the prejudices of the people
    	you have to snow.  Use those prejudices. 
    
    In short, play a UN*X guru when needed, a VMS guru when needed, a DOS
    guru when needed, but don't BE them, play the roles required.  You will
    almost always know more than s/he who interviews you.  Develop and
    maintain that self-confidence, be "all things to all people".
    	
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

    
    IMHO the future need in the field, because it will be the customer's
    need, is for people who can make systems communicate and work together
    in a transparent fashion (I just couldn't bring myself to say
    seemless).
    
    I think the future belongs to those you can integrate heterogeneous
    platforms together to solve our customers business problems. This
    implies knowing a good deal about each platform and a whole lot about
    networking.
    

    re: -1 
    
    Amen, brother, Amen.
    
    Gene Haag
    Network Consultant

    re .11   If you are a generalist, just tell anyone who asks that you
    are a specialist on NAS.  It's a legitimate specialty and requires you
    to know alot about everything-- i.e. a generalist.

    Or better yet, be a specialist in applying DIGITAL technology to solve
    business problems - be it VMS, Office, UN*X, MS/DOS.... and have a
    track record of doing exactly that....

    Be careful though. Once you are perceived as a generalist or specialist
    it is hard to change peoples view of you.
    
    .16 had a very good idea, which is effectively that we need to ALL be
    consultants capable of solving customers problems via technology
    available from Digital.

    For some good comments on VMS and ULTRIX bigotry, try reading the IBMPC
    Notes file, at 6004 (.77 - .81).  It's located at NAC::IBMPC.
    
    I think you'll find these comments are right in line with many of the
    things that have been written here.
    
    Funny, but I wrote what I wrote with no knowledge that this topic had
    come up here under the DIGITAL Notes File.
    
    
    Bill
    
    (Who knows IBM mainframe, IBM PCs, VAX/VMS, and Honeywell)

    It is the same thing in engineering-land: it is very difficult to get
    promoted based on your expertise if you are a generalist (like me).  On
    the other hand, you will never find that your specialty is no longer
    "in".  It's sort of a toss-up; you can lose either way.
    
    As for VMS vs. UNIX, it is safest to learn both.
    
    /Charlotte

I would echo comments by .13 and .16, especially given the fact that SI is the 
stated direction for services and Digital in general.  We are moving away from 
product sales to solution sales, and I believe our service offerings should 
reflect that philosophy as well.

I think Digital has a lot of people with good knowledge of Digital products, 
but very few who understand how to talk to a custom electronics device using a 
high-speed DMA board, control a microfilm display station over an RS-232 line, 
etc.  None of this is Digital specific, but the knowledge one gains from this 
may be applied in many situations.  Underneath, it's all the same.

It's what they try to teach as the core curriculum (or should be teaching) in
Computer Science and/or EE.  Don't learn a language, learn about parsing and
syntactical analysis, state tables.  Once you've got that, the rest is easy. 
On the O/S side, understand interrupt processing, memory management, paging,
hashing, linked lists and context switching.  None of these are unique to any
language or O/S. 

Steve

(who has lots of VMS background, plus RSX, RT-11, some MS-DOS, DOS, VM, a 
little Univac, HP and some others you probably never heard of, plus some basic
electronics knowledge (enough to be dangerous...never trust a programmer with
a screwdriver, because I CAN PROVE the smoke theory of electronics), some
low-level system programming type stuff, etc., and the ability to LISTEN to a
CUSTOMER, DISCUSS the problems with them, then try to use all my KNOWLEDGE and
EXPERIENCE to come up with a SOLUTION which meets their BUSINESS NEEDS). 

    To echo .-1 and several others...
    
    Once you know a basic core group of technologies, languages, and other
    items, it is relatively easy to learn new operating systems, platforms,
    hardware, etc.  
    
    When doing career planning, especially in the current, somewhat
    volatile computer career field, there are several interrelated factors
    everyone must consider and constantly reevaluate:
    
    - Technology:  emergence of **IX, open systems, standards,
    client/server computing, etc.
    
    - Career Paths:  as lower and middle management positions are squeezed,
    it's not enough to simply put in two or three years in a technical
    position and assume that it's then time to move into the supervisory
    ranks;  career paths today are different - in some ways better, in
    other ways more difficult - than those of even the recent past.
    
    - External factors:  regional economies, etc. - if you live in an area
    with a predominance of UNIX-based companies, both vendor and user, and
    they are the strongest companies in an otherwise weak economy, it pays
    to know UNIX.
    
    - Personal skill sets:  some people are great bit-fiddlers, others take
    a macro view.  Both can survive;  with UNIX, for example, a bit-fiddler
    can do kernel and other highly-technical work, while a macro-oriented
    person can design UNIX-based enterprise environments.
    
    
    Each and every one of these should be considered, not just "UNIX or
    VMS," when planning and reevaluating career paths.

 >  - Personal skill sets:  some people are great bit-fiddlers, others take
 >   a macro view.  Both can survive;  with UNIX, for example, a bit-fiddler
 >   can do kernel and other highly-technical work, while a macro-oriented
 >   person can design UNIX-based enterprise environments.

	Careful with that terminology.   Here in DEC, a bit-fiddler
	is a MACRO-oriented person.  :-)
 

    And here I thought a bit-fiddler was a stand-in in a bluegrass band.

    If you want REAL job security .. how 'bout RSX-11M.  We desperately
    need some RSX experience ... customer will pay handsomely.

    Bubba

Back to the basic issue at hand, I have a few comments and a suggestion:

First, I understand your frustration in trying to get promoted.  It took
2-3 years of constant pushing to get promoted to EIS consultant I.  To
complicate matters, my manager would lay out a set of hoops I had to jump
through to be a Consultant. ("You need to have a technical speciality,
be recognized for it outside the local area, etc.")  I'd be in midair going
through the last hoop and I'd get a new manager who had completely different
ideas as to what a Consultant is:("I don't care about that techie stuff, you
need to understand and help out with the business issues that I'm facing")...
That happened FOUR consecutive times.
My point is that each individual manager has his/her own criteria.  I also
believe (anyone able to set me straight?) that headcount is measured at least
partially by level, i.e. your manager has two Consultant I slots, and
so many Spec. 4's etc.  I know it got a whole lot easier for me when a
consultant left the group.  Maybe it was coincidence......

As for suggestions, bill yourself as an SI specialist!  The business of
SI is "glueing" together many diverse systems into a coherent whole.
That mandates that you have in-depth knowledge of many different systems.
As an example, on my current project, we are investigating hanging a Un*x-based
cell-controller off a VMS-based order/schedule tracking system.  Have the best
of both worlds!

Kevin

    Regarding what your manager expects a consultant to be: If you're
    talking about a consulting engineer, there is supposed to be a review
    board.  The board's opinion counts, not your manager's!  And the
    requirements are written down for all to see (though board seem to
    interpret the requirements differently).  One should be able to argue
    one's case from the requirements, not meet one manager's expectations. 
    (Real life may be different from you, alas.)

No, I was talking about an EIS Software Consultant I ( field, 52AE)
There seems to be no written set of requirements applied globally,
and there is certainly no review board.  It is all done by local management.
(how many levels, I have no idea)  
Kevin

    
    
    Regarding .0
    
          Jeffrey, I'm surprized at you! A U*ix guy like you, asking about
    the "V" word?
      
          Seriously though, I understand where you're coming from, because
    I'm on the other side of the fence. I often wonder if I should get a
    more comprehensive understanding of U*ix. I guess it would be a whole
    lot easier if we had a crystal ball.
    
    
                                                      Phil...

    It is interesting that no matter what side of the fence you sit on the
    picture is the same. From a sales support perspective, at least in our
    district we are not seeing a tremendous amount of U*IX business. What
    we are seeing is the large programs (point: this is a government primes
    district) require U*IX, or VMS, not open systems.
    
    What I have seen happen is that for a while we had a far amount of U*IX
    opportunities, of which we won precious few. At the time, we went into
    a U*IX hiring frenzy, and now are overstocked on the U*IX side of the
    house. Personally, I have 14 years of internals experience, and could
    care less what the O/S is as long as we win the business (5 years RSX,
    8 years VMS, 7 years U*IX). 
    
    My concern is that in watching the after effects of TFSO Vol 1 and Vol
    2, it appears that more U*IX specialists have been put on wavers than
    VMS specialists. If we are so gung-ho on U*IX, what is up? Is it that
    some districts have inappropriately hired, or are we cutting based on
    future expectations? Of course, it could just be my misunderstanding
    the facts (would be the first time, right Phil ;-)
    
    I hear the frustration in the replies to my original message. The one
    theme that is constant in my mind is that if we are a
    jack-of-all-trades, it is a given that (at least in my limited memory
    space) you will be a master-of-none. This may not be a bad thing, if I
    remember correctly it is where we were (in the field at least) a long
    time ago.

    
    
    
       I think (just my opinion, of course) that the reason so many, or an
    unbalanced number, of the people layed off were U*ix people (If that
    was the case. I tend to side with you on this one Jeff.) was because
    the hiring frenzy you mentioned was during the 3 phases of COD. I
    would guess that over 65% of the COD people that went into a technical
    position, went into U*ix. Now what you have is a glut of people with
    either very little customer/field experiance or U*nix experiance, or
    worse case, both.
    
    
                                just a thought, Phil...

    re: high numbers of UN*X people in layoffs
    
    Another aspect of this maybe the inconsistency of current goals.  Given
    the goals,
    
    	1. Increase UN*X expertise for use in the future,
    	2. Decrease headcount to increase current and future profits,
    
    one must examine the current picture, as well as the long term picture.
    In our district, we have at least two folks who are ready to deliver
    UN*X consulting.  Between them, they may have delivered 2 or 3
    months of UN*X consulting in the past year (my understanding of the
    situation).  Why?  Because in our district WE AREN'T LANDING ANY REAL
    UN*X BUSINESS.  So, they spend the bulk of their time doing VMS
    consulting instead.
    
    Now, if these folks weren't strongly skilled in VMS, they probably
    would have been in bad shape during the last downsizing.  I haven't
    heard of any EIS units which can routinely afford to carry one or more
    people who are non-billable.  In fact, our three node cluster is
    currently managerless because our numbers can no longer withstand the
    impact of a non-billable system manager.  This can get VERY sticky when
    there are system problems -- especially when billable work is relying
    on the cluster's health.
    
    Bottom line these days seems tied to "this quarter's" (or, at best,
    "this year's") numbers.  And if you don't have the UN*X business this
    quarter (or this year), bye-bye...
    
    -- Russ

    The impression I've had is that internal talent that can be bought off
    the streets is the most likely to let go.  That's simply because if we
    need the talent, we can go back and buy it off the streets.  So, with
    all the U*ix talent on the street, it only "makes sense" to let our
    U*nix talent go.  Obviously, this results in even more U*ix talent on
    the street that is available to us.
    
    If you want to make a good career move, seek the skill sets that are both
    wanted AND rare.  U*nix alone is like an MBA alone.  It ain't worth
    much.
    
    Steve

You have to ask yourself a few questions:

1.	What can I do that customers will be willing to cough up $150/hr. for?
	That's the target rate for an EIS consultant.

2.	What are the Sales people in my geography selling?  This will determine 
	what you'll be supporting for the next year or two.

3.	What direction is my unit taking?  Will we be a focussed "practice" or
	will we be a traditional "service delivery" unit?

4.	How competetive is the consulting market in my geography, both in 
	general, and for specific skill sets?  Some geographies are nearly
	overloaded with independent UNIX consultants, for instance.

5.	How will a given career direction  position me for a promotion to 
	Consultant II?  The requirements for Con II are more formal and there 
	is a review board.

6.	How does this all math up with the sort of stuff I LIKE to do?  A 
	serious conflict at this level might lead to considering employment 
	elsewhwere.

7.	After all is said and done, what is my backup specialty?  Nothing lasts 
	forever and hot specialties tend to be more transient than most.  When
	the current fad runs its course or the hot new technology becomes old 
	hat, what ELSE can I do to justify DEC's outrageous consulting rates?

8.	What am I studying now to back up my backup specialty when it becomes
	primary?

Don't believe everything your UM tells you.  He is probably under very heavy
short-term pressure and isn't in a position to think about your long-term 
well-being OR HIS OWN.

-dave
(EIS Consultant II)		

    Hi,
    	I'm one of those people in .31.  Once a VMS bigot, now reformed, but
    probably biased.  A year or so ago the prevailing winds were blowing
    U*IX, I followed them.  The question came down to what did I have to
    lose, knowing both?  Now rather than sitting on one side of the fence
    or the other, I've installed a gate.  I spend my time where the
    buisness dictates.  I'm currently on a site where I need BOTH, and
    best of all I'm having fun.
    
    Customer wins, digital wins, and so do I, still employed for now!
    
    Mike M.

    At work I use VMS. At home we have two word processors, one is an
    elderly but much loved CP/M machine the other an MS DOS. After a day in
    the office then to go home to work on two more mutually incompatible
    operating systems I don't really feel like facing yet another operating
    system. Mind you I'm still smarting from converting from TOPS-10 and
    TOPS-20 to VMS, they were the sixth and seventh systems that I had to
    learn.

    I just wish that some kind person would write a definitive OS that once
    I had learned it I would never have to learn another one ever again.

    Jamie.

    See what I just wrote in 1667.  The real career planning suggestion
    would be something like this:
    
    	If you know VMS, learn UNIX.
    
    	If you don't like UNIX, then learn something else (PC, Macintosh,
    	or any other operating system, system architecture, environment),
    	but don't stagnate in the VMS pool.  
    
    	After you've done that, learn UNIX.

    Had UNIX been available in the early 60s I would have thought it was
    great, however today I find it very old fashioned, difficult to learn
    and very easy to perform a major screw up. Not to mention its somewhat
    simple security system. 

    When we had the KL10 mainframes we ran two operating systems TOPS-10
    and TOPS-20. The former was favoured by the technical types the latter
    by the non technical ones. Having to support two separate operating
    systems as well as VMS was on of the reasons for the demise of the
    KL10s.

    How much does it cost to support UNIX?

    Also consider your next sale not just this one. If you sell VMS then
    you have a good chance that the customer will in future buy VMS rather
    than rewrite all his software. If you sell UNIX you stand the same
    chances as any other vendor.

    Jamie.

>   Also consider your next sale not just this one. If you sell VMS then
>   you have a good chance that the customer will in future buy VMS rather
>   than rewrite all his software. If you sell UNIX you stand the same
>   chances as any other vendor.
    
    I think this is a dangerous conception to have.  As with any other
    product, clients base their perceptions on a lot more than the
    underlying O/S (I know, code rewrites can add up to big $$$). 
    Corporate strategy, interconnectivity needs, etc. also chart the path
    for future purchases.  We can't be complacent that a VMS sale today
    will generate one tomorrow simply because of cost of migrating to
    another platform.  Throw MOTIF onto a UNIX workstation, and the *USER*
    doesn't see or care about the underlying O/S (except that on the destop
    it's probably a lot faster).  Both O/S's (and MVS, etc.) have markets
    where they shine, and markets where they don't.
    
    I would recommend specializing in UNIX, yet stay competent VMS and
    other up and coming O/S's.
    
    --- Gavin

I have to agree with the Learn U*X camp.  I am also a VMS bigot
but I have become somewhat cross trained in Ultrix.  My account
group (District for those of us who can't remember the new names) 
finds the mixture very valuable and I find the experience to be fun.

I do have to agree that U*X is an antiquated O/S with a cryptic
user interface, but there are a lot of interesting features lurking
in there.  Customers are also finding it difficult, even with "Open
VMS" justifying staying with VMS in this day and age.

Larry

>    and very easy to perform a major screw up. 
    
    How would you do this without root permissions?
    
>    Not to mention its somewhat simple security system.
    
    Could you clarify this? ULTRIX is C2 compliant, and you can purchase a
    B1 compliant version which is more security than VMS!

    Re .40

    I admit that was not running on the latest version but on a customer's
    site I succeeded in logging into an account that seemed to have every
    privilege from a terminal in an open office. As to the major screw up I
    was not necessarily referring to a system screw up, just a local one in
    your own directory is surprisingly easy to do.

    I was taught it as a user and system manager, I was seriously
    unimpressed in both cases. It is a fine system for computer whiz kids
    but for the average person who is not madly in love with their system I
    think that it very, very difficult to use.

    There must be a more awkward, user hostile, and generally cack handed
    method of controlling a system than ULTRIX, but I haven't seen it yet.

    Jamie.

    Want to be employed by someone into the nineties? Then DON'T tie
    yourself to AnY operating system. Ensure you have a working knowlege of
    UNIX, VMS, MVX, DOS and Windows NT (if it catches on).
    
    
    My 2penniesworth...

There are two SEPARATE, INDEPENDANT arguments going ont here.

First is what would it be a good idea to learn (from a career perspective).
As I said before, the more you know, the more options you have, and the more
employable you are.  Plain and simple.

The second seems to be a debate of the merits of VMS vs UNIX.  That will not be
solved here, but you should consider this:
If all of the customers in your area think UNIX is the best thing going, and
thus all the available business is in the UNIX space, does it really matter to
a field specialist which is ultimately superior?  You wanna be an unemployed
expert on the *BEST* operating system around, or an employed expert on 
whatever comes around?

Kevin

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
=====================                           [Littleton, MA, USA            ]

                John C Dvorak's Great Operating System Quiz
                     {PC Magazine Sept 24, 1991 }

    Finding the right operating system is as simple as ordering a pizza
    and  answering some easy questions. 

    In the months (and perhaps years) ahead, many of us will be
    confronted by  a decision: What operating system to choose? DOS?
    Unix? DOS with windows?

    As I watch more and more users choose sides, it's apparent that there
    are aspects of individual personalities that work into the decision. 
    So I did some arduous research to develop one of my famous tests to
    help people determine which operating system is best for them. I
    examine a combination of both computing needs and personal habits. 
    Circle either the DOS, OS/2, W (for Windows), or Unix choice next to
    your favorite answer. Count up the number of answers for each choice. 
    Whichever one dominates should be the right operating system for you. 
    If there is a mismatch of answers, then you should probably wait a year.

    Dvorak's Operating System Quiz

    1. What application do you expect to use the most?
     DOS) spreadsheet
    OS/2) large complex database
       W) solitaire
    Unix) GREP

    2. What is your favorite TV show?
     DOS) "Nova"
    OS/2) "The MacNeil-Lehrer Report"
       W) Woody Woodpecker
    Unix) The 3 A.M. test pattern

    3. What is your favorite hobby?
     DOS) stamp collecting
    OS/2) bird watching
       W) snail racing
    Unix) button collecting

    4. What kind of clothes do you prefer?
     DOS) sports suit, no tie.
    OS/2) suit and tie.
       W) sweater and jeans.
    Unix) Nerdy T-shirt, jeans, and no underpants.

    5. What kind of music do you like?
     DOS) The Beatles
    OS/2) classical
       W) New Age fusion music
    Unix) tuba solos

    6. What's your favorite color?
     DOS) modern beige
    OS/2) blue
       W) stark white
    Unix) pizza-stain red

    7. What's your favorite car?
     DOS) Ford
    OS/2) Lexus
       W) fake Bugatti
    Unix) Borgward

    8. Who is your favorite artist?
     DOS) Rembrandt
    OS/2) Pollack
       W) Dali
    Unix) Gary Larsen

    9. Who is your favorite author?
     DOS) Robert Heinlein
    OS/2) Tom Wolfe
       W) John Madden
    Unix) Walt Disney

    10. Who is your favorite actor?
     DOS) Rod Steiger
    OS/2) John Wayne
       W) Leonard Nimoy
    Unix) Richard Simmons

    11. Who was your favorite president?
     DOS) Abe Lincoln
    OS/2) Ronald Reagan
       W) Jack Kennedy
    Unix) Hubert Humphrey

    12. What's your preferred breakfast food?
     DOS) cereal
    OS/2) steak and eggs
       W) softboiled egg 
    Unix) pizza

    13. If time wasn't important, how would you prefer to travel?
     DOS) walk
    OS/2) steam train
       W) hot air balloon
    Unix) pogo stick

    14. (to be answered by men) If you were stuck on a desert island
        with only one woman, whom would you choose?
     DOS) Kim Basinger
    OS/2) Meryl Streep
       W) Dr. Ruth Westheimer
    Unix) a photo of Kim Basinger

    15. (to be answered by women) If you were stuck on a desert island
        with only one man, whom would you choose?
     DOS) Kevin Costner
    OS/2) Arnold Schwarzenegger
       W) Bill Gates
    Unix) a photo of Kim Basinger

    16. When you get up in the morning, what is the first thing you do?
     DOS) shower
    OS/2) brush teeth
       W) gargle
    Unix) pick off food stuck to body from sleeping with pizza

    17. What's the last thing you do before going to bed?
     DOS) let out cat, turn off lights
    OS/2) brush teeth
       W) pray
    Unix) check to see if there is a pizza in the bed 


    Tally your score and don't waste a minute finding pleasure in the
    operating system that suits you best.  One disclaimer I have to make: 
    Anyone scoring  17 straight "Unix" answers should seek counseling
    immediately.

    It is myhope that, within the next 10 years, machine interfaces will
    have progressed so far that yo won't even know whether you are running
    UNIX, VMS, DOS or anything else. Hopefully, the conceept of the
    "operating system" will be so submerged you won't care.
    
    Gregg

    re .45:
    
    Well, that seems to be the concept behind POSIX and related API-type
    standards.  If you use the standard services and follow the rules, your
    program should be totally indifferent to the OS underneath - merely
    requiring recompilation/relink for the new system.
    
    /Dave

    Re: .46
    
    The title to your reply says it all.
    
    Gregg

    re: .last few
    
    Yeah, until the API wars start :-)
    
    --- Gavin

    To keep being employed, and valuable to this company, you should not
    just know VMS OR ULTRIX. You should not even just know both. You need
    to have a thorough understanding of the technical merit and
    shortcomings of both OS, AND the particular platforms they run on. You
    need to know when and how to position VMS, or ULTRIX. You need to know
    how to combine the strengths of both. The bottom line is to present a
    SOLUTION to the CUSTOMER'S BUSINESS PROBLEMS, so that the customer is a
    DIGITAL customer, and stays that way!
    
    Face it, VMS and ULTRIX will never have the same features. VMS is our
    vehicle for innovation. ULTRIX is our standards platform. Think about
    it. You're not employed to know VMS, or ULTRIX or whatever. You're
    employed to do a job, to support DIGITAL's customers. To keep those
    customers happy. To delight them with our superior solutions. To allow
    those customers to grow and prosper through the use of our
    technologies. 
    
    Now stop bickering about OS, (and API), get to know your customer's
    business, come up with innovative ways for them to employ our
    techonologies. GO GET THOSE CUSTOMERS!
    
    :)
    
    heng-wah
    Singapore EIS

    Re .49

    Nonsense we have loads of employees who know absolutely nothing about
    either OS and yet are fully functional within the Corporation. Ken
    Olsen is an excellent example.

    Jamie.

    re.50
    
    Look at the topic title. I was referring to those deciding between VMS
    and UNIX !

    Of course, there are employees who are unaware of the marketing and
    technical issues of operating systems.  These are employees who don't
    have, or, more precisely, ought not to have customer contact.

    It's the responsibility of every employee who comes into contact with
    customers to know Digital's operating system strategies to the extent
    that it helps communicate to the customer what Digital is doing and
    planning to do.

    If you're an internal functions person reading DIGITAL because you're
    curious, and only know VMS, that's fine.  But if you are in New York or
    Hong Kong, you had better know what's motivating interest in UNIX among
    all customers.

Well I'm not going to fall into any VMS/Ultrix War, however, as a software
specialist/EIS, I have a problem when I'm supposed to be a guru of both.  
No offense, but I don't seem to forget many VMS commands, as easily as I forget
Ultrix commands.  And the more time I spend on one OS, the more I forget about
the other.  Use it or Lose it theory applies.  Now when I'm sent out to a
customer site I hate being touted a specialist, especially when I'm actually
a generalist.  

No, I don't mind knowing both, but can you honestly go to a customer site,
and charge them X dollars per hour, and constantly be on the phone.
We are Jack of all trades and masters of none!

Just my observation!

- Mike - Reading_notes_while_waiting_for_the_TK50_to_spin

    
    re: .53 - i prefer being a master of manuals and help systems. I've
    decided it's not worth the damage of cluttering the brain with all the
    different OS trivia.  As it is, my unix shell mimic's my favorite vms
    style commands, and my vms symbols, etc mimic my favorite unix/dos
    commands. The only OS neutral editors i find around here are emacs and
    sedt. The only two i bother with...
    
    	bob
    

                   
    I am really happy to see the degree of interest in this topic. It means
    to me that folks are opening their eyes and admitting a new reality.
    
    A few years ago I saw a marketing presentation on a new Digital
    software product, and heard the presenter say:
    
    	"of course it runs in a heterogeneous environment!"
    
    He proceeded to explain how the product supports all kinds of VAXes,
    from the MicroVAX all the way up to the glorious and future 9000
    series! A few people laughed. I almost cried.
    
    Unix is no panacea; in fact it is about the most user-hostile operating
    system I've really used (well, OK, JCL on an IBM 370 is a close
    runner-up...) but the fact is, having Unix skills is just like knowing
    how to fix VW Rabbits when you've worked for years on Ford. It isn't
    really that different, but you need to know the language. And there
    are a lot of Rabbits out there that need fixing!
    
    FWIW, what happened to all those Ford mechanics? Are they without work?
    Or did they learn how to fix the other guys' cars?
    
    Perhaps our next challenge will be learning how to use different
    vendor's hardware and software as well our own. Our product runs on just
    about anything - HP, IBM, Sparcstations, even NEC! I've seen a lot of funky
    hardware out there and a lot of strange brands of Unix. But lots of
    folks buy that stuff and talk to us about software or integration. It
    sells! Sometimes we have to let go of VMS the product, but we can still
    hang on to what it means. About quality, reliability, usability...
    
    I think the real challenge is how to maintain our dreams, ideals, and
    culture. We may need to change horses now and then, but it's worth it.

    Uh Oh. My error. I *thought* there was some interest in Unix. But
    it was a whole year ago.
    
    Where did everybody go?
    
    Please come back!

    I've been a VMS person since the 1/780 came out. Done all kinds of
    system management. Tok all kinds of course. Feel quite comfy with VMS.
    
    I have had to use unix as a grad student. I didn't like it. And I
    prefered to remain with VMS.
    
    HOWEVER, one of the jobs I have to do requires ultrix, and I have to
    build an ULTRIX system and install SQL. It is a tough learning process,
    but it's just another system. And in these tough times, whether I like
    the system or not, it isn't bad to have the experience.
    
     So I forget my prejudices and plunge in. 
    
     Gregg

    re: switching from <xxx> to <yyy>
    
    I used to work solely on PDP-11's... then joined Digital, and worked
    solely on PDP-10's. Then DEC management decided to cancel the entire
    product line (when it was earning 30% of corporate revenues) and I thus
    came to work solely on VMS/VAXen...
    
    so what the heck is the big deal about switching to another
    system/editor/computer...  just do it. Be glad you get paid all these
    bucks to learn all these new toys!! Lots of our customers have whole
    careers established in a brand line of computing, then get laid off
    when the company switches, and they have to train themselves.
       I'm *not* praising DEC, just saying get on with your own lives and
    try to find something to enjoy in the daily work you do. You'll be lots
    happier then.
    
    I'm taking a Unix course right now, and it's just an operating system
    designed by a committee...
    
    Bruce Evans

    >I'm taking a Unix course right now, and it's just an operating system
    >designed by a committee...
    
    Au contraire, Sir.
    
    It was an operating system designed by a couple of guys in
    a basement, which is why (in the early days) it exhibited
    an certain elegance of design and purity of thinking, and 
    possibly also a certain roughness around some of the edges.
    
    These days, it's an operating system that's not designed
    by anyone, but modified by everyone.
    
                                                             

    Unix is the Klingon operating system:
    
    mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)
    
    Gregg

    OSF is an operating system designed by committee.
    
    			Mary

.60
>>    Unix is the Klingon operating system:
>>    
>>    mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)

Boy did that hit the nail on the head!

I may have to know it, but I don't have to like it!

- Mike    

    I know it and I like it. It's a tool to do a job. I also like VMS.
    Hell, I even like RT11 and CP/M, let alone MSDOS,
    
    /a

	
	Re .60:

>>    Unix is the Klingon operating system:    
>>    mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)
    
  	You forgot "doesn't take prisoners". 

	MM

>>>>    Unix is the Klingon operating system:    
>>>>    mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)
    
    Right.  I mean, that much is obvious when you
    compare the downright nastiness of fork() with
    the sublime friendliness of sys$creprc(), eh?
    
    In other words - maybe you're not a programmer?
    When I assert that Unix is friendlier, I'm mainly
    referring to the structure of what Unix calls the 
    kernel and what VMS calls the exec.   Command interpreter
    design is a trivial issue to me.
    
    Incidentally, you might compare the relative efforts
    of building a DCL shell on Unix and building a 'sh' style
    CLI on VMS.   
    

    >>    Unix is the Klingon operating system:
    >>
    >>    mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)
     
    With these qualities it seems well qualified to be the operating system
    of the future.
    
    ken

    Ken,
    
     It WILL have a cloaking device - as well as VMS. In fact, we can see
    the future in seeing how MSDos is "cloaked" by MS Windows, and how the
    NEXT machine hides Unix from you unless you specifically want to see
    it. I've never programmed on the NEXT, but a good friend has. His
    report is that you are provided with enough callable modules (in C, of
    course) so that you never need to see Unix under all but the most
    extremem conditions.
    
     As time goes on, the OS of the system - as well as the CPU you're
    running - will become hidden from the programmer and user alike. 
    
    Gregg

    Re: .65
    
     Well, as it happens, I've been programming for about 20 years, now.
    And I've done my share of down and dirty systems programming - like
    writing a few Direct Access DMA I/O drivers (for VMS). Mostly done
    things in Real Time Simulation, data acquisition, Real Time Gpraphics,
    and Artificial Intelligence.
    
	I think creprc (create process) is far mor mnemonic than fork. Fork
    sounds cooler, but is less indicative of what you are doing. And I'll
    take SEARCH over GREP any day.
    
    	The lack of version numbers is a severe handicap.
    
        The fact that AWK is the initials of the command's authors is
    simply atrocious.
    
     I am a programmer. And I've used everything from front panel switches
    to MVS, to CP/M, to RT-11 to RSX to UNIX (and suntools), to VMS to
    MSDOS, MSWindows and the Macintosh. 
    
     So, what that experience tells me is that command level design - the
    interface to the person using the machine (who may or may not be a
    programmer) is CRITICAL. Just look at the MILLIONS of dollars being
    spent by people on MSWindows and all the attendant software. Or why
    people like the Mac. Programmers - people like you and I - only make up
    a fraction of users. And, from a user point of view, I'll take a
    friendly, easy to understand user interface over Unix any day. Why the
    use of case-sensitive single letter switches alone is enough to make
    most users (programmer or not) blanch.
    
    	Gregg

    Re: .68 & .69
    
    Hear! Hear!
    
    --- Gavin

Re: .60

>     Unix is the Klingon operating system:
>    
>     mean, nasty, hostile, agressive, warlike. ;^)
>    
>     Gregg

Now, this is a fine example of typical Terran stereotypes about the
Klingons.  Have you no regard for the finer aspects of Klingon culture?
Their contributions to opera, for example, can stand with just about
any human effort in the field.

Please try to be a little more aware of the feelings of your fellow
beings.  After all, Klingons are people, too!


Re: .69

>                          And, from a user point of view, I'll take a
>     friendly, easy to understand user interface over Unix any day.

Gee, that's funny - this is a UNIX workstation, but I didn't have
to use any "case-sensitive single letter switches" to run Notes.
I just double-clicked with my mouse.  To create this reply, I clicked
on the "Create Reply" button at the bottom of the window, below your
note.

And what's so "easy to understand" about a user interface that makes me
type everything?  Heavens, I have to use this obscure "SET" command
just to change something that belongs in a logical place like an
environment variable! :-)

				- - Steve

    >	I think creprc (create process) is far mor mnemonic than fork. Fork
    >sounds cooler, but is less indicative of what you are doing. 
    
    Well, I disagree.  'fork' is highly suggestive of
    what it's doing -- make two things where we had one.  As
    in "the road forked..".   'creprc' is highly suggestive
    of what it's doing -- create a new process, with no
    relationship between the context of that process and
    the creator.
    
    But that wasn't what I meant.  I was talking about how
    easy the services are to use.     Consider just
    the hassle of creating an independent process and 
    feeding it a command line.  On UNIX, you just fork(),
    and then exec() in the child.  On VMS, you have to
    create the process running LOGINOUT, and either
    pass it a file of commands, or do some mailbox 
    tricks.
    
    Ah, but you say, on VMS you just LIB$SPAWN?  True, if
    a subprocess is ok.  But LIB$SPAWN is actually a pretty
    hairy bag of tricks which was implemented in order to
    band-aid over the complexity of process creation.  It
    works nicely, but if the underlying system design had
    been better, it wouldn't have been needed in the first
    place.
    
    >	The lack of version numbers is a severe handicap.
    
    Agreed.
    
    >        The fact that AWK is the initials of the command's authors is
    >simply atrocious.
    
    You think that, say, FORTRAN or COBOL are more inherently
    meaningful?  "Formula Translator"?  Sounds like it ought
    to be a symbolic (algebraic) desk calculator, not a programming
    language.
    
    AWK is primarily a programming language.
    
    (I presume you're complaining at the obscurity rather 
     than the egotism).
    
    Besides which, what's that go to do with UNIX (the operating
    system)?  If I write a program called DAVE, and DEC ships it,
    does that suddenly make all of VMS bad?
    
    > So, what that experience tells me is that command level design - the
    >interface to the person using the machine (who may or may not be a
    >programmer) is CRITICAL. 
    
    OK, but it's not the operating system.   A command interface
    is, or ought to be, simply yet another program.
    There's nothing particularly hard about putting DCL on
    UNIX.
    
    VMS as an operating system is awfully complicated.  UNIX
    is less complicated.   This is goodness, and it's very
    difficult to retrofit elegance/simplicity onto anything.
    
    >a fraction of users. And, from a user point of view, I'll take a
    >friendly, easy to understand user interface over Unix any day. Why the
    
    Right.  Wouldn't it be nice if the operating system made it 
    easier to develop command interfaces?   The idea of one and 
    only one user interface is ridiculous, since not all users
    have the same needs.
    
    This isn't really *easy* in UNIX (you have to know a lot
    of finicky details about file descriptors and stuff) but
    it's nigh-on impossible on VMS, if you don't work for DEC.
    
    	
    ---
    
    Wanna switch sides now?  You can say nice things about
    UNIX, and I'll reply saying what a kludge it all is
    compared to VMS.
    

    having set up systems for "users" and programmed systems for "users"
    the bottom line is most users don't care if it's ms-dos/unix/vms/vtam
    or whatever...all they care is will it solve my problem and can my
    people be trained easily or is it too complicated for users who
    95% of the time are not technicrats....KEEP IT SIMPLE AND AS FAR
    FROM THE O/S as possible and your system will be accepted ...
    
    my 2 cents...

              <<< Note 1640.72 by MU::PORTER "what's in a name server?" >>>
    > VMS as an operating system is awfully complicated.  
    
    Dave, just gave me the reason I been looking for to justify asking
    my Boss for a raise :-)
    
    Seriously though, I think VMS kernel design is really neat, I mean the basic
    design of access modes, systems vs. process context, and IPL's ..they
    all kind'a work in harmony..sort of, as long as you know what IPL you'r
    at, and what mode your in, and if you'r in process or system context
    and if you'r holding any spin locks or not, and if you have all your
    pages locked in memory to avoid a page fault above IPL 2, and know if
    you pages are from paged or non-paged pool , and few other things like
    that..then one is all set and ready to jump into VMS kernel and starts
    coding...
    
    and what about that neat exception handling mechanism in VMS, 
    and the exception dispatcher etc.. i think that is more powerfull than
    signals in u*x...
    
    but I see your point about user interface to the kernel, i agree with
    you that unix has a simpler interface into kernel..one example i liked
    is the similar interface to sockets (TPC/IP) and to files...those
    itemlist in VMS are annoying sometimes, but i guess one can get used to
    them after a while.
    
    one can on VMS build an layer to hide the VMS interface from
    applications, and give user simpler view of VMS , that is what Posix
    on VMS is all about ? (i think..).
    
    /nasser
    
    

From the "Computers" column in today's Boston Globe, discussing the lore of
operating systems:

"Unix is a programmer's heaven and a business user's hell...  Part of that
lore is true."

I think we can all agree with that statement.

	I kind of like Unix, I feel like I'm playing Adventure - "Now what 
was that dam**d magic word to get me back to the cabin ??". Actually we can
make Adventure a user interface, instead of a bugcheck, a whole bunch of dwarves
run out and kill ya.

-John-

Now that you mention it, Adventure had a better user interface than either 
VMS (DCL) or UN*X (sh).

-dave

	Ahhhhhh adventure, the only computer game I ever felt like playing,

	all those one-liners, in the days before we had terminals, and the stuff
	came out as a printout....................

	pick up keys

	wave stick at dwarf

	
	mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

	My attitude as expressed in .64 aside, it really depends on what 
	you're trying to do.  U*IX and VMS are tools, and one chooses
	tools to match the job at hand. 

	So, the koan is:

		"What is a better tool, a hammer or a screwdriver?"

	MM

A hollow voice says "May be fixed in a possible future major or minor release"

About seven or eight years ago, someone released a fully-working
Adventure shell for Unix:

	% throw file at printer
	The printer has swallowed your file and turned it into paper.

Martin.

    ...now guess where it was printed.

    Probably on a printer behind a frozen waterfall.  Now where is that
    torch...