Submitted by VMS Software, the company developing OpenVMS, has announced some considerable changes to its licensing program for hobbyists, and the news is, well, bad. The company claims that demand for hobbyist licenses has been so high that they were unable to process requests fast enough, and as such, that the program is not delivering the “intended benefits”. Despite this apparent high demand, contributions from the community, such as writing and porting open-source software, creating wiki articles, and providing assistance on their forums, “has not matched the scale of the program”.
Now, I want to stop them right here. The OpenVMS hobbyist program was riddled with roadblocks, restrictions, unclear instructions, restrictive licensing, and similar barriers to entry. As such, it’s entirely unsurprising that the community around a largely relic of an operating system – with all due respect – simply hasn’t grown enough to become self-sustainable. The blame here lies entirely with VMS Software itself, and not at all with whatever community managed to form around OpenVMS, despite the countless restrictions.
So, you’d expect them to expand the program, right? Perhaps embrace open source, or make the various versions and releases more freely and easily available?
No, they’re going to do the exact opposite. To address not getting enough out of their community, they’re going to limit that community’s options even more. First, they’re ending the community program for the Alpha and Itanium (which they call Integrity, since it covers HP’s Integrity machines), effective immediately, so they won’t be granting any new licenses for these architectures. Existing licenses will continue to work until 2025.
Effective immediately, we will discontinue offering new community licenses for non-commercial use for Alpha and Integrity. Existing holders of community licenses for these architectures will get updates for those licenses and retain their access to the Service Portal until March 2025 for Alpha and December 2025 for Integrity. All outstanding requests for Alpha and Integrity community licenses will be declined.
VMS Software announcement
This sucks, but with both Alpha and Itanium being end-of-life, there’s at least some arguments that can be made for ending the program for these architectures. Much less defensible are the changes to x86-64 community licensing, which basically just come down to more bureaucracy for both users and VMS Software.
For x86 community licenses, we will be transitioning to a package-based distribution model (which will also replace the student license that used to be distributed as a FreeAXP emulator package). A vmdk of a system disk with OpenVMS V9.2-2 and compilers installed and licensed will be provided, along with instructions to create a virtual machine and the SYSTEM password. The license installed on that system will be valid for one year, at which point we will provide a new package. While this may entail some inconvenience for users, it enables us to continue offering licenses at no cost, ensuring accessibility without compromising our sustainability.
VMS Software announcement
The vibe I’m getting from this announcement is that by offering some rudimentary and complicated form of community licensing, OpenVMS hoped to gain the advantages of a vibrant open source community, without all the downsides. They must’ve hoped that by throwing the community a bone, they’d get them to do a bunch of work for them, and now that this is not panning out, they’re taking their ball and going home. That’s entirely within their right, of course, but I doubt these changes are going to make anyone more excited to dig into OpenVMS.
All of this feels eerily similar to the attempts by QNX – before being acquired by BlackBerry – to do pretty much the same thing. QNX also tried a similar model where you needed to sign up and jump through a bunch of hoops to get QNX releases, and the company steeped it in talks of building a community, but of course it didn’t pan out because people are simply not interested in a one-way relationship where you’re working for free for a corporation who then takes your stuff and uses it to sell their, in this case, operating system.
This particular mistake is made time and time again, and it seems VMS Software simply did not learn this lesson.
While this is sad news, let’s be honest here.
The “old” operating systems like VMS or OS/2 are maintained only for service contracts. I am not sure any new project will choose them over say Linux, or another existing operating system, including FreeDOS.
And that leaves the hobby programs in questionable value.
QNX for example had such a program in the past, They gave up around the time they were sold to Blackberry. And today they sell the RTOS to auto makers and other embedded developers, which don’t actually need a grassroots community. Similar with RISC OS on Raspberry Pi, which is on their last legs:
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/Software%20information:%20RaspberryPi:%20RISC%20OS%20Pi
This is the unfortunate truth of many “alternate” operating systems. They only serve a very narrow niche not targeted Windows/macOS/Android for high end or Linux/*BSD/FreeDOS for embedded/low level use.
(yes I know Android is Linux)
QNX only changed its policy thanks to Research In Motion. If RIM had not bought the rights of it, the OS probably would have been open source, by now. The parent company was already releasing some portions of it, after all.
And a lot of people have been asking IBM to release the source code of OS/2 for years. But to be fair, and thanks to Microsoft involvement, the whole thing must be a legal minefield, so I kind of understand them in their decision of not opening that can of worms.
And while OpenVMS is still a more niche OS than those, I have to admit I have a special interest in OpenVMS, considering the rumor that the Windows kernel is basically a revision of the VMS kernel. And I wish it was open source just to see if this is true and the possible similarities between them.
I’m not sure it is even possible, but definitely a completely made up rumor.
Why?
VMS is (was) targeting Alpha / VAX architecutre.
Whereas Windows kernel (at least 3.1) is x86 assembly:
http://218.94.103.156:8090/download/developer/xpsource/Win2K3/NT/base/mvdm/wow16/kernel31/
(Yes this is a leak, so don’t use except for research)
And NT is definitely a completely new beast altogether. (Again it was OS/2 NT, until IBM made it impossible to continue together. So, they would not allow any ip theft there).
And timeline does not match. When VMS was released, Microsoft was still on MS-DOS, which is now actually open source:
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/
That actually adds to my point. Niche operating systems either go “open source” (more like abandoned source), or close off entirely. They would rarely continue free hobby version development.
sukru,
I think sofiv88425 is right. I have no first hand experience with it, however I’ve heard from people who are familiar who’ve said the lineage is there. We know NT was developed by a large number of former digital employees in a very short time frame. It is quite probable that they just took the VMS kernel they built and rewrote it for x86.
https://www.itprotoday.com/compute-engines/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story
NT may have been a new beast for microsoft, but not for Cutler and the other employees who previously worked at digital.
Alfman,
Yes, of course they took a team from Digital. When Cutler was laid off he was working an a new project outside of VMS. That cancellation led to his team following him to Microsoft.
And, yes, it is expected they would use similar terminology.
However, OS/2 NT was very much different than VMS design wise. Unlike the monolithic kernel, they had a clean microkernel architecture with different personalities. Instead of using assembly for a target machine, they used C and C++. What is more? They defined a “Hardware Abstraction Layer” (HAL) to build platform independent device drivers for the system.
While it would be unrealistic to expect teams “forgetting” all their past behavior, calling “NT is just a revision VMS”, is at best misguided.
Or…
It would be same as calling
“Mojo is just another version of Swift, since it was written by Chris Lattner after he left Apple for Modular”
sukru,
Why is it misguided if the similarities and circumstances seem beyond coincidental?
sukru,
First of all it’s not just one employee but a whole team. Also the employees are not the entirety of the argument, the similarities run deep even though NT was a rewrite. I don’t think the lineage argument should be dismissed out of hand.
Alfman,
Which is true.
This is very different than
I would of course dismiss that out of hand, as there is no reasonable possibly the VMS software itself has evolved into NT.
Just to be complete, I asked GPT for summarizing the similarities and differences between the systems. Its writing seems to fit what I have seen:
Full transcript here:
https://chat.openai.com/share/63c7decc-6ccb-4a9b-b113-5acc24cd5fb4
(And sorry for the directed prompts, this is how I usually get better answers from the system)
Alfman,
Anyway, I might have a soft spot for NT, as it is one of the very few really good things that came out of Microsoft.
FWIW, the original NT team did not have that many people, who had originally worked on VMS, other than Cutler and a few people that came with him from DEC research. As he was poached by Microsoft long after he had left the VMS team.
Any coincidences between NT and VMS are mostly coincidental, mostly in terms of lessons learned.
NT started as a clean sheet microkernel that would be the basis for a scalable “universal” OS for Microsoft. From embedded, desktop, up to data center. From that perspective it was a completely different philosophy than VMS.
If you squint your eyes you can see all sorts of influences in NT: VMS, DOS, OS/2, Unix…
sukru,
I don’t deny NT had some new ideas, but NT clearly did not follow clean room practices and it’s kernel APIs were substantially similar. I guess the best way to put it is that it’s a matter of degree. Mind you I’m not trying to be critical of reusing patterns that work, it’s only natural that we do this since we are all standing on the shoulders of those before us. Their good ideas should be copied, this is how things improve! Hiding technology behind lock and key would only serve to slow down progress and hold everyone back. The trick is finding a fair balance where nobody feels cheated.
Xanady Asem,
I think 20 people is substantial.
It does seem they copied API and structures, that’s no coincidence. Is it fair to say the debate is more about how much of the implementation was copied? I don’t know that answer, but I agree with sofiv88425 that it would be interesting to study the source and check out how far down the similarities go.
There is a good book with lots of details “Showstopper.” It is a good read, and describes in detal where a lot of the key initial members of the NT came from and what the design goals were. There is also a good interview with Cutler on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi1Lq79mLeE
In any case. By the time Cutler made it to Microsoft, he hadn’t worked on VMS for a while.
The similarities came from another, unrelated to VMS, DIGITAL project: MICA. Which was the microkernel that Cutler et al were working on before they were poached. And that was actually what DEC threatened legal action against MS.
He left digital the very same year he joined MS taking 20 digital employees with him. You are welcome to claim that API similarities are coincidental. but I don’t fell this argument does enough to dispels the real and likely possibility that portions of the NT kernel API were actually copied from VMS.
Xanady Asem,
I started watching your video link, but it’s over 3 hours long and I can’t do it. If you want to show something specific, give me the times.
Anyway, are you sure the book actually contradicts the notion that Cutler brought technology with him to microsoft?
https://techmonitor.ai/technology/dec_forced_microsoft_into_alliance_with_legal_threat
Sorry, I misread your comment, it sounds like your point is that the technology he took from DEC was project MICA and not VMS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_MICA
I can agree with you there, it wasn’t VMS, but MICA.
Still, project MICA was DEC’s upgrade path for VMS customers to DEC’s PRISM architecture. So it makes a lot of sense that they used such a similar API and explains why NT’s APIs would be so similar to VMS as well.
Can you provide examples to back up your claims that the NT and VMS APIs are similar?
Xanady Asem,
I am not a primary source, but this is the book specifically cited by my earlier link making that claim. Unfortunately it’s an expensive hard copy.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555580599/acmorg-20
Just as a side note here: Chat GPT is not helping anyone’s argument in the area of comparing older now niche operating systems. Its not trained on enough data here to be in anyway helpful. Its not a good use of the technology.
I am a bit confused. That book was published in 1997, several years before NT was even a thing. How could they make the claim of parallels between VMS and NT APIs?
Sorry I meant 1987.
(Is there no edit functionality in this site?)
Xanady Asem,
I searched the book and that’s what came up, however I see there are newer editions of it too.
Anyway, did you read the link? The point being made was that a book documenting “VAX/VMS Internals and Data Structures” could be interchanged with windows NT.
Given how many Digital employees got hired by MS, I have little reason to doubt the code ended up at microsoft. In fact I think it’s likely it did. It wouldn’t have be to used verbatim, although by some accounts Digital comments did make their way into NT code. I understand you disagree and that you’d like more evidence, I would too. I’d be nice to dig deeper but it goes back to sofiv88425’s point: to make independent conclusions we need the code of all relevant projects at the time to be available. For better or worse, baring leaks, we don’t really have that and so we’re left with old accounts and we can choose to believe them or not.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
I agree. Chat GPT could be valuable for finding sources. Using it for analytical capabilities is fascinating, but should not be taken as an authority on anything. It’s very good at filling in the gaps, but it’s not able to discern the integrity of it’s own output. Output can just as easily contain falsehoods and facts, all while speaking confidently without a hint of irony.
So, NT is similar to VMS because of reasons.
Got it.
Xanady Asem,
Come on now, no need to give me attitude. I told you I am not a primary source, and it’s fine that you don’t want to believe the sources that I linked to, but I have no reason to doubt them and you’ve provided no additional evidence to the contrary. Unless you have something more tangible to add, without access to the original sources code we’re both at a loss to make independently verifiable assertions.
If you can’t provide an answer a simple request, “no” is sufficient.
Xanady Asem,
That cuts both ways. This is nothing new, since the 90s people have thought Cutler and his team brought technology from Digital with them. And given the circumstances around MS payments to DEC, it seems totally plausible that is exactly what happened behind closed doors. I understand you don’t want to believe it, which is fine, go with your gut. However you need to understand that not everyone’s gut tells them that MS didn’t do it.
I have repeatedly said I wish we could look at the source code of winnt, mica, vms to get more direct evidence. You seem to think that’s not important but it is because without evidence you have no more of a basis for saying it didn’t happen than those who say it did.
In other words, NT is similar to VMS because reasons. Got it.
Xanady Asem,
You keep acting like you haven’t even read the links. Did you know they found comments from DEC’s in the windows NT source? How do you explain that? You can deny the veracity of their claims, but in that case you really ought to agree with me about the need to see the original code. I agree with the need for more evidence, hell It would be fascinating.to read the Internal emails/minutes/legal correspondence/private contracts/source code/etc, just as it was fascinating in the DOJ case.
The supposed comments found in the NT source were from the MICA project, not VMS, as I already pointed out.
All I have seen in actual references in the book and interview I have seen/read are in regards to the MICA connection.
I simply asked if you had an actual example of the VMS/NT API similarities, and the only thing you were able to produce is a random VMS book published years before NT.
Since you don’t know anything about MICA, VMS, or NT internals this conversation serves no purpose. You are not offering any actual information in this regard.
Xanady Asem,
It sounds like you keep wanting to debunk me personally, but you’ve got it wrong as I am not the one to be debunked. I am asking you if you have any evidence to debunk those sources. If not and your opinion is based only on your gut feeling, that is fine. I am not being dismissive of your opinion or trying to be disrespectful towards you, but you should concede that you don’t know in purely factual terms that DEC source code did not end up being used at microsoft. If you do have contrary evidence, then pray tell, what is it?
Don’t you agree that access to the original source code (vms/mica/nt) would really help settle things? This was sofiv88425’s point, and frankly I think the whole discussion here emphasizes that point.
Also it is a logical fallacy that the book about VMS internals has to be dated after NT. Think about it, the date of the VMS internals book has no factual bearing on the claim that it accurately describes the NT kernel.
I am sorry, this is coming off as extremely manipulative of you.
It is most definitively not my responsibility that YOU can not provide a factual example of how NT and VMS APIs are similar.
Xanady Asem,
For the Nth time I am not the source.of the claims, I am citing sources other than myself. By all means debunk their claims if you can. But to pretend that it is unreasonable or manipulative to cite other sources other than oneself is a total misdirection because deferring to sources that know more than we do is the cornerstone of legitimate journalism and papers everywhere.
It doesn’t mean sources are infallible, but you haven’t provided the evidence needed to turn plausibility into implausibility. You’d rather I provide first hand assertions, and that would be fine if we had first hand access to the source code and other forms of evidence in hand, but we don’t. This is what I’ve been saying all along. It seems like we should be able to agree that more evidence is needed to settle things more definitively. To me this seems like a reasonable point to end on, do you agree?
This ended a while ago; I asked a simple question, in good faith, for which you didn’t have an answer. That was stablished a few posts back.
Xanady Asem,
Again, I cannot answer for other sources, it’s simply unreasonable for you to insist I do. Each time you’ve asked me I’ve responded in good faith – I don’t posses the information myself Also, you’ve been hypocritical in refusing to answer questions, which is not in “good faith”.
I accept you want to end the discussion here, although I wish we could find common ground agreeing that more evidence is needed to back or refute each other’s gut feelings over whether MS ended up with digital’s code. I’m left guessing that the only reason you won’t agree with this is because you’ve convinced yourself that our roles must be adversarial, which is unfortunate because I believe reasonable common ground could have prevailed if not for the adversarial silliness. Anyway we’ll leave these issues unresolved. I learned things about MICA that I didn’t know about, and I thank you for that.
Another manipulative response. I guess you’re “that guy” in this site.
Dully noted.
Xanady Asem,
How so? At least back up your claim. I’ve been trying to reach reasonable common grounds that we could both agree on for most of this thread and that’s the truth. You’ve been doing everything possible to avoid agreement. That manipulation is on you. So tell me in very clear terms why you think that your gut feeling is superior to mine?
I already provided 2 sources directly addressing this matter. I already mentioned the MICA-NT similarity claim. I asked you for a simple example regarding your VMS-NT similarity claim. You are not able to provide an example. End of story.
Sometimes people have value to add in a matter outside of their realm of knowledge. And that is OK. And sometimes, a simple ask for an example is just a simple ask for an example.
Your manipulative goading is unnecessary and paints you in a bad light, sir. Don’t be “that guy.”
You are trying to invent disagreement. But in fact that reinforces my point about digital assets being brought to microsoft. You must know that right?
I already gave you a source. Are you able to provide any evidence that debunks it? No? Then why do you get so offended when I point out that I don’t have enough information to independently verify the claims and you don’t have enough information to refute them.
Can’t we just both agree to the obvious?
Niche operating systems either go “open source” (more like abandoned source) or go completely closed. They rarely continue to develop the free hobby version.
“it enables us to continue offering licenses at no cost, ensuring accessibility without compromising our sustainability.”
How does it do that? the added complexity must cost them more if anything.
Providing a license code is a trivial process, 100% automated. All they need is a single low powered server to process the requests.
This will only increase their costs while reducing the number of users.
I can only assume they are talking in terms of providing support for the “free” users.
They need people managing the support forums, diagnosing issues, writing docs, etc.
You also have a very vocal subset that are in the forums saying how bad the support and system is. When you consider this is what they Sell, it’s damaging to the brand.
I think they initially hoped the community would become a free workforce for them. And.. Well.. They haven’t. Community engagement is Hard and needs dedicated people to get anything out of it.
It’s like I have multiple projects open source on github… No one else has contributed, added docs, features, nothing. But if I’m getting 100 emails a day asking for help on why it doesn’t work for them, being free is Costing me time/money.
Sometimes it’s financially better to have fewer users.
They sure didn’t try very hard to get people to buy in. They provide instructions, and a shell script for setting up.
The shell script is in a PDF, though, and it contains errors. Fun stuff.
I probably didn’t help. I literally just applied for a license maybe three weeks ago, and made the mistake of being brutally honest in what I was going to do with the OS, basically just play around with it maybe build a few simple apps for fun times. Instead of lying about how I was going to port Rust over to it or what not.
I see VMS goig the way of Solaris sadly.