The VSI Hobbyist program is Live!

[John H. Reinhardt]

I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.

Camiel announced on the DEC Computer Users Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/DEC.users/> and the OpenVMS Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/308062552560462/> that the VSI OpenVMS Community License Program is open for business.

The VSI News entry is here: https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/?fbclid=IwAR2BDg5QflHaGTtfMbTcgqe2BK0B-MBy7pPtnCuCiYHC6GUE84uMva9hnJw

The VSI application page is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/
The Community License Agreement is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/agreement/


Some discussion has already started about the terms which include mention of running only one copy at a time. I don't know how that can work out with a VMScluster.


--
John H. Reinhardt

[John H. Reinhardt]

I got registered. Took two attempts. The first time just hung and eventually the form cleared with no update. The second time it worked and I got an email with a link to verify my application. Clicked it and got a VSI page which said I was verified and my application would be processesed. Waiting not to see what that results in.

--
John H. Reinhardt

[David Goodwin]

Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on it?

How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.

If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would provide a much quicker and easier experience.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,

David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:

> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
> (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on
> it?

Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
Linux, use Linux.

> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
> put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
> PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.

Almost everyone already has such experience.

> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
> OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
> provide a much quicker and easier experience.

I don't think that that is the goal.

If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license we
should count our blessings.

Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/28/2020 4:39 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 4:36:56 AM UTC+12, John H. Reinhardt
> wrote:
>> I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it
>> deserved a separate one of it's own.
>>
>> Camiel announced on the DEC Computer Users Facebook page
>> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/DEC.users/> and the OpenVMS
>> Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/308062552560462/>
>> that the VSI OpenVMS Community License Program is open for
>> business.
>>
>> The VSI News entry is here:
>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/?fbclid=IwAR2BDg5QflHaGTtfMbTcgqe2BK0B-MBy7pPtnCuCiYHC6GUE84uMva9hnJw
>>
>> The VSI application page is here:
https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/
>> The Community License Agreement is here:
>> https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/agreement/

> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
> (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist
> on it?

VMS is a commercial closed source project. Nothing surprising in
that they want to know who downloads a copy.

That is quite common: Oracle, IBM etc..

And yes - a Windows evaluation copy also requires information.

Check yourself on:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-10-enterprise

> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
> put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
> PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.

Considering how much time they will have to spend installing and
configuring the system, then I can't see a registration form as
a big issue.

> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
> OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
> provide a much quicker and easier experience.

That is what the student kit provides.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/28/20 4:39 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 4:36:56 AM UTC+12, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>> I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.
>>
>> Camiel announced on the DEC Computer Users Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/DEC.users/> and the OpenVMS Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/308062552560462/> that the VSI OpenVMS Community License Program is open for business.
>>
>> The VSI News entry is here: https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/?fbclid=IwAR2BDg5QflHaGTtfMbTcgqe2BK0B-MBy7pPtnCuCiYHC6GUE84uMva9hnJw
>>
>> The VSI application page is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/
>> The Community License Agreement is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/agreement/
>>
>>
>> Some discussion has already started about the terms which include mention of running only one copy at a time. I don't know how that can work out with a VMScluster.
>>
>
> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on it?

Maybe because Linux is free, and in reality, non-commercial regardless
of what people use it for. I don't know where you can get Windows,
legally, without some form of registration other than paying cash
for it.

>
> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.

I expect none. It's really not that big a deal. It asks for no
information that people don;t pass out willy-nilly anyway and it
only took seconds top do it.

>
> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>

That's already available. It's just not the Hobbyist Program.
But I don't see where you can't do just as much with it as
you can with the Hobbyist one. Guess it depends on what your
goals are. Everything has a price. Personally I really don't
see the price of the Hobbyist Program as high enough to matter.
Come to think of it, HPE was asaking for a lot more information
than VSI is!!

bill

[David Goodwin]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 10:13:52 AM UTC+12, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/28/20 4:39 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 4:36:56 AM UTC+12, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> >> I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.
> >>
> >> Camiel announced on the DEC Computer Users Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/DEC.users/> and the OpenVMS Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/groups/308062552560462/> that the VSI OpenVMS Community License Program is open for business.
> >>
> >> The VSI News entry is here: https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/?fbclid=IwAR2BDg5QflHaGTtfMbTcgqe2BK0B-MBy7pPtnCuCiYHC6GUE84uMva9hnJw
> >>
> >> The VSI application page is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/
> >> The Community License Agreement is here: https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/agreement/
> >>
> >>
> >> Some discussion has already started about the terms which include mention of running only one copy at a time. I don't know how that can work out with a VMScluster.
> >>
> >
> > Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on it?
>
> Maybe because Linux is free, and in reality, non-commercial regardless
> of what people use it for. I don't know where you can get Windows,
> legally, without some form of registration other than paying cash
> for it.

The non-commercial OpenVMS hobbyist thing is free too so why require registration?

Windows will require some details if you choose to pay for it. But if you're just after a time-limited demo you can grab the media creation tool from Microsofts website no registration required: https://www.microsoft.com/en-NZ/software-download/windows10

IIRC when you install it you'll be asked for a product key and if you don't supply one it will run as an evaluation copy until you buy and enter a key. If you're willing to run beta software you also don't need a key - I guess running buggier than normal software is the price there.

> >
> > How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.
>
> I expect none. It's really not that big a deal. It asks for no
> information that people don;t pass out willy-nilly anyway and it
> only took seconds top do it.
>
> >
> > If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would provide a much quicker and easier experience.
> >
>
> That's already available. It's just not the Hobbyist Program.
> But I don't see where you can't do just as much with it as
> you can with the Hobbyist one. Guess it depends on what your
> goals are. Everything has a price. Personally I really don't
> see the price of the Hobbyist Program as high enough to matter.
> Come to think of it, HPE was asaking for a lot more information
> than VSI is!!

Yeah, this is more just reducing friction. Why bother potential users with extra work when its not actually required? Why make users renew their licenses every year? Is there actually a good business reason for doing this or is it simply being done because that's what DEC chose to do 20+ years ago.

Given its being given away for free why not just bake a non-expiring non-commercial license into the ISO and just have a link to download the ISO on the website? Its a better experience for all involved.

[David Goodwin]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 9:52:05 AM UTC+12, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,

> David Goodwin writes:
>
> > Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
> > (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on
> > it?
>
> Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
> Linux, use Linux.

Registration forms and license PAKs aren't really a defining behaviour of OpenVMS. They're not something that has to be there so "Because VMS is not Linux" isn't really a reason to have them - at least not for a free offering.

> > How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
> > put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
> > PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.
>
> Almost everyone already has such experience.

New users coming from other operating systems probably haven't. Certainly I've never encountered anything like the license PAKs outside of OpenVMS and Tru64. Filling out forms for free downloads seems relatively uncommon these days too.

> > If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
> > OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
> > provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>
> I don't think that that is the goal.
>
> If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license we
> should count our blessings.
>
> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?

If it isn't the goal it probably should be. I presume VSIs goal is ultimately to grow the number of OpenVMS customers rather than just support those who haven't already migrated to another platform. This means competing with Linux. Could they really do that effectively without making OpenVMS more widely available in some form?

Keeping in mind even Windows Server struggles to compete with Linux and everyone already knows how to use Windows.

I'm not ungrateful of the hobbyist program here. We're lucky VSI rescued OpenVMS and is making it available at all - lots of other operating systems have not been so lucky. I'm just looking at it from a new user perspective. If we're going to make something harder for a new user there had better be a good reason for it.

[Dave Froble]

On 7/28/2020 5:52 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,
> David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
>> (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on
>> it?

At least two possible reasons.

1) it is what those providing the program are used to doing
2) perhaps they want to have some idea of the interest in the CL

> Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
> Linux, use Linux.

Pitiful response ....

>> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
>> put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
>> PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.

Perhaps. Make the suggestions directly to VSI. For the CL, I for one
do not feel registration is such a hardship.

> Almost everyone already has such experience.

Not everyone, perhaps prior hobbyist users.

>> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
>> OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
>> provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>
> I don't think that that is the goal.

If not, then it should be a primary goal.

> If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license we
> should count our blessings.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....

> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?
>

Read my freaking lips. VSI cannot issue licenses, PAKs, or anything
else for VMS releases they did not produce.

How many times must this be explained to you?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

[Chris]

On 07/28/20 23:23, David Goodwin wrote:

> Yeah, this is more just reducing friction. Why bother potential users with extra work when its not actually required? Why make users renew their licenses every year? Is there actually a good business reason for doing this or is it simply being done because that's what DEC chose to do 20+ years ago.
>
> Given its being given away for free why not just bake a non-expiring non-commercial license into the ISO and just have a link to download the ISO on the website? Its a better experience for all involved.

Have no plans to use vms in the near future, but am grateful that VSI
have done this and the registration requirement is not an issue. Had
to do that for years to get copy of Solaris. Let's the vendor keep
track of how many are interested and provides a marketing point for
for possible follow up. It's a business, right ?.

Still, some always moan because it's not exactly what they wanted,
free or not, but just seems a bit petulant and childish to me...

Regards,

Chris

[David Goodwin]

I'm not arguing from a "this isn't exactly what I wanted" perspective. I'm fine with filling out the form and installing PAKs and the current registration process is an improvement over the old one.

No, I'm arguing from a "competing with Linux is really really hard so lets make the new user process as painless as possible" perspective. And at least under the OpenVMS releases I've used entering license PAKs on a new install was anything but painless. Once you have the system up and running renewing the licenses wasn't so bad provided you did it before the previous ones expired but its still a chunk of work that I've never seen a good reason for.

[John H. Reinhardt]

On 7/28/2020 4:52 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

>
> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?
>

Yes. According to Camiel, the VSI PAKs will come with VSI as the Producer which will only work with VSI created OpenVMS distributions. This means the VSI CLP PAKs will not work with any HP/HPE created version of OpenVMS whether it be VAX, Aplpha or Integrity.

--
John H. Reinhardt

[Terry Kennedy]

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 10:19:52 PM UTC-4, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> Yes. According to Camiel, the VSI PAKs will come with VSI as the Producer which will only work with VSI created OpenVMS distributions. This means the VSI CLP PAKs will not work with any HP/HPE created version of OpenVMS whether it be VAX, Aplpha or Integrity.

Are the documentation and other support web pages (preferably including documentation on the distribution media) available to CL users? In particular, the "migrating from DEC/Compaq/HP products" information? As I recall, there was a bit of a kerfuffle with the first VSI releases because of the change of PAK producer/issuer to VSI when the user had certain other products which were still DEC or 3rd-party.

I'm also interested in how access to patches will be managed in the future- right now it probably isn't relevant as the current VSI releases are far more patch-current than the HPaquital releases current hobbyists are running.

[johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk]

Your comparisons seem flawed on various grounds.

VMS isn't competing with Joe Random Linux.

Is it competing with Red Hat? Is actual RHEL downloadable for free? Not
as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe. That may
or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.

Is it competing with Suse Linux? Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES)
requires registration and an activation code, even for a "free trial".
Until recently OpenSuse (freely downloadable, no registration) and SLES
weren't guaranteed to be derived from a common codebase. Now they are.

Anyone here remember the joys of FlexLM?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/29/2020 7:19 AM, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 02:05:40 UTC+1, David Goodwin wrote:
>> I'm not arguing from a "this isn't exactly what I wanted"
>> perspective. I'm fine with filling out the form and installing PAKs
>> and the current registration process is an improvement over the old
>> one.
>>
>> No, I'm arguing from a "competing with Linux is really really hard
>> so lets make the new user process as painless as possible"
>> perspective. And at least under the OpenVMS releases I've used
>> entering license PAKs on a new install was anything but painless.
>> Once you have the system up and running renewing the licenses
>> wasn't so bad provided you did it before the previous ones expired
>> but its still a chunk of work that I've never seen a good reason
>> for.
>
> Your comparisons seem flawed on various grounds.
>
> VMS isn't competing with Joe Random Linux.
>
> Is it competing with Red Hat?

Probably yes.

> Is actual RHEL downloadable for free?
> Not as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe.

Yes. CentOS.

> That may or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.

It really can't change.

Either Redhat/IBM continue to make the CentOS builds or somebody
else will do it. Redhat/IBM can't prevent that due to the
licenses.

Arne

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk <johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 02:05:40 UTC+1, David Goodwin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:35:59 AM UTC+12, Chris wrote:
>> > On 07/28/20 23:23, David Goodwin wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yeah, this is more just reducing friction. Why bother potential users with extra work when its not actually required? Why make users renew their licenses every year? Is there actually a good business reason for doing this or is it simply being done because that's what DEC chose to do 20+ years ago.
>> > >
>> > > Given its being given away for free why not just bake a non-expiring non-commercial license into the ISO and just have a link to download the ISO on the website? Its a better experience for all involved.
>> >

It is absolutely _NOT_ being given away for free. You are being granted
a temporary licence to use a commercial product free of charge provided
you agree not to use it for commercial purposes.

>> > Have no plans to use vms in the near future, but am grateful that VSI
>> > have done this and the registration requirement is not an issue. Had
>> > to do that for years to get copy of Solaris. Let's the vendor keep
>> > track of how many are interested and provides a marketing point for
>> > for possible follow up. It's a business, right ?.
>> >
>> > Still, some always moan because it's not exactly what they wanted,
>> > free or not, but just seems a bit petulant and childish to me...
>>
>> I'm not arguing from a "this isn't exactly what I wanted" perspective. I'm fine with filling out the form and installing PAKs and the current registration process is an improvement over the old one.
>>
>> No, I'm arguing from a "competing with Linux is really really hard so lets make the new user process as painless as possible" perspective. And at least under the OpenVMS releases I've used entering license PAKs on a new install was anything but painless. Once you have the system up and running renewing the licenses wasn't so bad provided you did it before the previous ones expired but its still a chunk of work that I've never seen a good reason for.
>
> Your comparisons seem flawed on various grounds.
>
> VMS isn't competing with Joe Random Linux.
>
> Is it competing with Red Hat? Is actual RHEL downloadable for free? Not
> as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe. That may
> or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.
>

Agreed.

You pay for RHEL. You don't pay for CentOS but there's a reason why
people still pay for RHEL even though CentOS is available.

VMS is competing with RHEL. It is not competing with desktop Ubuntu.

> Is it competing with Suse Linux? Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES)
> requires registration and an activation code, even for a "free trial".
> Until recently OpenSuse (freely downloadable, no registration) and SLES
> weren't guaranteed to be derived from a common codebase. Now they are.
>
> Anyone here remember the joys of FlexLM?
>

Never used it, but have heard of it. :-)

The VSI terms appear to be very reasonable to me apart from one thing
which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.

The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.

I am _never_ going to agree to letting VSI management do that.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

It would surprise me *a lot* if VSI has put the time and other
resources into building such an interface into the CL kit.

I think that is just a mistake in the agreement text. At least
until proven different...

And how on earth would that work technically? I guess many of
these CL kits will run with no access or visibility to the
outside or to to VSI.

[Bill Gunshannon]

I can't even imagine how they would connect to a machine
on a home network with a random DHCP address and no DNS of any kind.

bill

[John E. Malmberg]

On 7/29/2020 6:19 AM, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 02:05:40 UTC+1, David Goodwin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:35:59 AM UTC+12, Chris wrote:
>>> On 07/28/20 23:23, David Goodwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, this is more just reducing friction. Why bother potential
>>>> users with extra work when its not actually required? Why make
>>>> users renew their licenses every year? Is there actually a good
>>>> business reason for doing this or is it simply being done
>>>> because that's what DEC chose to do 20+ years ago.

There may be restrictions in that they must follow due to their contract
with HPE.

Their lawyers may have advised to it for the following reasons:

1. It makes it easier to win a court judgement against someone using a
the community distribution for commercial use.

2. If they do not do this consistently, they may not be able to enforce
violations of their licensing policy.

The last time I was working on OpenVMS development for what became HPE,
even internally the licence keys were all time-bombed with 1 year.

I do not expect an answer to those type of questions in the newsgroup.

<snip>>> No, I'm arguing from a "competing with Linux is really really hard

>> so lets make the new user process as painless as possible"
>> perspective. And at least under the OpenVMS releases I've used
>> entering license PAKs on a new install was anything but painless.
>> Once you have the system up and running renewing the licenses
>> wasn't so bad provided you did it before the previous ones expired
>> but its still a chunk of work that I've never seen a good reason
>> for.

I would expect that cleaning up the installation procedure is probably
lower priority on the list than just getting the x86_64 port at a usable
parity.

One of my future projects is to test using Ansible to install OpenVMS
via a network or USB connection to a serial console.

The last time I was doing bulk installs of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft
was making changes with each release to make those bulk installs harder,
even using the official Microsoft tools.

They had this interactive GUI wizard for what they callled OOBE, Out Of
the Box Experience, that they really wanted run manually for every
Windows user once per PC.

And then Windows 8 added a delayed discovery of the network adapters
with a mandatory GUI interaction after their install automation script
ended that I did not find any way to automate before I was changed to a
different project.

> Your comparisons seem flawed on various grounds.
>
> VMS isn't competing with Joe Random Linux.
>
> Is it competing with Red Hat? Is actual RHEL downloadable for free? Not
> as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe. That may
> or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.

RedHat has a developer's license for RHEL linux that is free for
development use only, and free downloads. It gives you access to a lot
of the restricted content from their knowledge base.

It is far more restrictive than the VSI community license as it only
allows being installed on one physical machine. You can run unlimited
VMs of it on that physical machine. You can only allow other users with
a RedHat Developer's license to use those instances, which implies that
it becomes their only system also. You may not use it for automated CI
testing.

> Is it competing with Suse Linux? Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES)
> requires registration and an activation code, even for a "free trial".
> Until recently OpenSuse (freely downloadable, no registration) and SLES
> weren't guaranteed to be derived from a common codebase. Now they are.

Suse Linux Enterprise server actual licensing terms allows the operating
system downloaded from SUSE to be freely used with out any activation
code. Their older documentation used to say this very prominently.

The activation code is needed to download updates. So you very quickly
can end up with an out of date distribution.

SUSE has a free developer's licensing system for non-commercial use,
that does not appear to restrict how many systems you can use or what
you do with them as far as it is not for "production" use, only
development and test.

The major pain point there is that they need to register with a special
server to receive updates. You can setup a local server to cache the
updates. I do not know any more details as I have not setup that
server. It is just too easy to use the OpenSUSE Leap instead.

The OpenSUSE Leap releases appear to come out for the community to use
and kick the tires of for a few months before Suse Linux Enterprise
equivalent release comes out.

Regards,
-John

[John E. Malmberg]

On 7/29/2020 7:50 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/29/2020 7:19 AM, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Is actual RHEL downloadable for free?
>> Not as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe.
>
> Yes. CentOS.

And Scientific Linux, and a few other distros.

>> That may or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.
>
> It really can't change.
>
> Either Redhat/IBM continue to make the CentOS builds or somebody
> else will do it. Redhat/IBM can't prevent that due to the
> licenses.

The presence of at least one build being available is probably needed to
prove that the GPL software is compliant with GPL requirements.

It looks like CentOS does not get all of the bugfixes that RHEL makes
available to their paying customers.

Regards,
-John

[Scott Dorsey]

David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on it?

In the case of Linux, the license allows free distribution.

In the case of Windows, they want you to register for a Microsoft account
before allowing you to do so.

There are a lot of reasons why, and a few of them have to do with piracy but
the vast majority of them have to do with knowing who your potential customers
might be.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rfrrqa$83b$3...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
> for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
> if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
>
> I am _never_ going to agree to letting VSI management do that.

Why not?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/29/2020 9:29 AM, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> On 7/29/2020 7:50 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/29/2020 7:19 AM, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Is actual RHEL downloadable for free?
>>> Not as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe.
>>
>> Yes. CentOS.
>
> And Scientific Linux, and a few other distros.

CentOS is just special because it is done by Redhat itself.

Arne

[Andy Burns]

John E. Malmberg wrote:

> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Is actual RHEL downloadable for free?
>>> Not as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe.
>>
>> Yes. CentOS.
>
> And Scientific Linux

SL7 is the last version, there won't be an SL8, CentOS 8 is expected to
be used instead by Fermi/CERN etc going forwards

[Dave Froble]

On 7/29/2020 7:19 AM, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

I think David Goodwin has advanced some good ideas. Some defend VMS as
not being as "easy" as Linux. That is the wrong approach. Perhaps
desire VMS to be "better" and "easier" than Linux.

Regardless, I see the lack of tracking of VMS users by DEC as a flaw. I
do support VSI gathering information on anyone showing interest in VMS.
For one thing, they know who, and can easily do so, to contact should
important patches be required. It can also be a marketing tool.

VMS itself perhaps should look for, and download patches and
information. I won't go so far as to advocate automatically applying
any such patches. Maybe optional.

[Dave Froble]

On 7/29/2020 8:58 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

> The VSI terms appear to be very reasonable to me apart from one thing
> which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
>
> The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
> for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
> if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
>
> I am _never_ going to agree to letting VSI management do that.

It is their product. They have the right to place limits on it.

If you have confidential data you don't want exposed, have it not
available during any such checks.

Do you really expect VSI to have the time to do massive checking? It is
just an option, should some type of conflict arise.

For many, where inbound access from the internet just isn't available,
they will need to have your system reach out to them. You're in full
control of that. Well, unless they include some communications
capability you're not aware of.

I'm not at all concerned.

[Dave Froble]

Lacking imagination again Bill?

:-)

Take a quick look at products such as "GoTo My PC", or however it's named.

Such products work by having your system go out to some server, and
getting back replies. It can be made to look as if something is coming
in. But it's all replies to something your system sends out.

Do you doubt there are apps that do just that?

How about your mail client checking for mail every 10 minutes?

I'd rather VSI did NOT use such tactics ....

[Dave Froble]

Perhaps Simon does not want anyone getting into his porn collection?

:-)

[abrsvc]

On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 10:42:23 UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/29/2020 8:58 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
> > The VSI terms appear to be very reasonable to me apart from one thing
> > which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
> >
> > The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
> > for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
> > if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
> >

If you are going to object to a clause in the agreement, you should quote that clause accurately:

"You acknowledge that VSI may monitor your compliance with Use restrictions remotely or otherwise, and you agree to provide reasonable cooperation in connection therewith."

There is no indication that VSI will require connection to your system, only that they may require confirmation that you are not using it for commercial purposes. In my case, VSI could not connect to any system since none are connected to the internet. I don't have modems on my systems either. I guess since I am local to VSI (45 minutes or so), they may request to stop by, but I think that it is not likely.

I don't think that the possibility of verifying that the license is being used according to the agreement is an unreasonable request.

Dan

[Bill Gunshannon]

No, I just have enough knowledge about how networking really works
to know there is no way in hell they could find a machine on my
home network, much less access it. And, it's actually going to
get even harder when I dump Verizon DSL and start doing all of
my network management myself.

>
> :-)
>
> Take a quick look at products such as "GoTo My PC", or however it's named.

That requires you to provide information to the GoToMyPC server.
It can't find you. Just like Zoom and Skype and all the others.

>
> Such products work by having your system go out to some server, and
> getting back replies.  It can be made to look as if something is coming
> in.  But it's all replies to something your system sends out.

Exactly. And how does VSI make my firewall pass a connection?

>
> Do you doubt there are apps that do just that?
>
> How about your mail client checking for mail every 10 minutes?

Again, originates on my end and my firewall has to allow it.

>
> I'd rather VSI did NOT use such tactics ....
>

I doubt they will. I think it was just more boilerplate.

bill

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2020-07-28 21:52:01 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply said:

> In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,
> David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:
>

>> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
>> (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist
>> on it?
>

> Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
> Linux, use Linux.

It's interesting that Linux is now being viewed as being more user
friendly, isn't it.

>> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be put
>> off by a registration form and having to mess around with license PAKs?
>> Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.
>

> Almost everyone already has such experience.

I have LMF scars here too, and I know how this PAK 🤮 works better than most.

A chunk of the complexity and confusion here whether with LMF or with
product packaging—IP being a separately-installed kit, for
instance—dates back to every hunk of OpenVMS being extra-cost.

VSI has dropped to two license PAKs with OpenVMS Alpha, and which is a
substantial improvement over the past. More than a few folks had issues
with those omnibus hobbyist PAK files getting corrupted, too. And the
VSI commercial PAK purchase and distribution mechanism is still a mess,
and in various dimensions. But I digress.

But by present-day standards, LMF is quite user-hostile.

A more recent approach would have a license that was a checksum string
only, and not the complexity of an LMF PAK.

A current approach would have you sign into your VSI account with your
VSI password, and your purchases and entitlements then be automatically
loaded onto the OpenVMS system. Or you downloaded one platform
provisioning file for offline use.

VSI will head in the user-accounts direction eventually, but that will
require building a fair chunk of infrastructure both at VSI and into
OpenVMS (connecting the forums access and such), and likely involves
work around telemetry and other adjuncts.

>> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
>> OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
>> provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>

> I don't think that that is the goal.

That has long been the central goal; to increase the pool of folks with
OpenVMS admin and development experience.

Creating pre-configured systems was actively discussed with HPE too,
and will be raised with VSI.

OpenVMS is comparatively hostile to new users, as you should well realize.

Particularly with the arrival of x86-64 and virtualization, there'll be
further discussions with VSI and likely eventually downloadable and
preconfigured OpenVMS guests.

> If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license we
> should count our blessings.
>

> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?

VSI PAKs work only with VSI products, and HPE PAKs work only with HPE products.

VSI PAKs do not work with HPE products, and HPE PAKs do not work with
VSI products.

VSI hobbyist works only with VSI products.

You'll here need to upgrade to VSI OpenVMS Alpha V8.4-2L1 or to the
EV6-only VSI OpenVMS Alpha V8.4-2L2; to a VSI OpenVMS release after
V8.4.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

[Stephen Hoffman]

Then you've through the end of 2021 and the end of the HPE licenses to
migrate off of OpenVMS.

Absent permanent HPE PAKs... Rock. Hard place.

It would not surprise me to see hobbyists in some future VSI version
required to allow remote access and telemetry.

[David Jones]

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 5:52:05 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?

I can't imagine it being otherwise.

I haven't paid much attention to the VSI releases so far, will the 8.4-L2 ISO upgrade an HPE 8.4 in place.

The question no one answers honestly:
"Are you satisfied with the backup of your current system?"

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/29/20 11:14 AM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2020-07-28 21:52:01 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply said:
>
>> In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install
linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI
insist on it?
>>
>> Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
Linux, use Linux.
>
> It's interesting that Linux is now being viewed as being more user
friendly, isn't it.

To the majority of people who never had any background with VMS it
always was. But today, especially. Stick the disk in - boot it -
choose install - after it finishes and reboots use it with an easy
to familiarize with GUI. And that ignores booting from the CD and
just using it.

>
>>> How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.
>>
>> Almost everyone already has such experience.
>
> I have LMF scars here too, and I know how this PAK 🤮 works better
than most.

Once you are familiar with them I don't think most people will
be put off by PAKs. Getting them on the system and loaded is
hardly rocket science.

>
> A chunk of the complexity and confusion here whether with LMF or with
product packaging—IP being a separately-installed kit, for
instance—dates back to every hunk of OpenVMS being extra-cost.
>
> VSI has dropped to two license PAKs with OpenVMS Alpha, and which is
a substantial improvement over the past. More than a few folks had
issues with those omnibus hobbyist PAK files getting corrupted, too. And
the VSI commercial PAK purchase and distribution mechanism is still a
mess, and in various dimensions. But I digress.
>
> But by present-day standards, LMF is quite user-hostile.

By present day standards all of VMS is quite user-hostile. But, like
OS2200 or zOS or some of the other legacy holdouts it is worth it in
the long run.

>
> A more recent approach would have a license that was a checksum
string only, and not the complexity of an LMF PAK.

You mean like Windows. I prefer LMF.l

>
> A current approach would have you sign into your VSI account with
your VSI password, and your purchases and entitlements then be
automatically loaded onto the OpenVMS system. Or you downloaded one
platform provisioning file for offline use.
>
> VSI will head in the user-accounts direction eventually, but that
will require building a fair chunk of infrastructure both at VSI and
into OpenVMS (connecting the forums access and such), and likely
involves work around telemetry and other adjuncts.
>
>>> If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>>
>> I don't think that that is the goal.
>
> That has long been the central goal; to increase the pool of folks
with OpenVMS admin and development experience.
>
> Creating pre-configured systems was actively discussed with HPE too,
and will be raised with VSI.
>
> OpenVMS is comparatively hostile to new users, as you should well
realize.

That's what I said above.

>
> Particularly with the arrival of x86-64 and virtualization, there'll
be further discussions with VSI and likely eventually downloadable and
preconfigured OpenVMS guests.
>
>> If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license
we should count our blessings.
>>
>> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does
Alpha have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?
>
> VSI PAKs work only with VSI products, and HPE PAKs work only with HPE
products.
>
> VSI PAKs do not work with HPE products, and HPE PAKs do not work with
VSI products.
>
> VSI hobbyist works only with VSI products.

And you would think with as many times as this has already been said
people would have grasped it by now.

>
> You'll here need to upgrade to VSI OpenVMS Alpha V8.4-2L1 or to the
EV6-only VSI OpenVMS Alpha V8.4-2L2; to a VSI OpenVMS release after V8.4.

For now, I just hope one of them works with ES40

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, Stephen Hoffman <seao...@hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-07-29 13:37:54 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply said:
>
>> In article <rfrrqa$83b$3...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>
>>> The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check for
>>> compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available if
>>> they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
>>>
>>> I am _never_ going to agree to letting VSI management do that.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Then you've through the end of 2021 and the end of the HPE licenses to
> migrate off of OpenVMS.
>

I know Stephen, I know. Maybe it's time for that. :-(

> Absent permanent HPE PAKs... Rock. Hard place.
>
> It would not surprise me to see hobbyists in some future VSI version
> required to allow remote access and telemetry.
>

Well, VSI have just granted themselves the right to do that in the
licence that everyone is so eager to agree to.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, abrsvc <dansabr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 10:42:23 UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 7/29/2020 8:58 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> > The VSI terms appear to be very reasonable to me apart from one thing
>> > which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
>> >
>> > The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
>> > for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
>> > if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
>> >
>
> If you are going to object to a clause in the agreement, you should quote
> that clause accurately:
>

I did Dan unless you can come up with a different answer to my questions below.

> "You acknowledge that VSI may monitor your compliance with Use
> restrictions remotely or otherwise, and you agree to provide reasonable
> cooperation in connection therewith."
>

How else would you interpret the words "monitor" and "remotely" in the
above sentence ?

If the above interpretation is accurate, then why would you otherwise
have to "agree to provide reasonable cooperation in connection therewith." ?
The only answer I have is that VSI are saying you have to give them a means
into your systems to check on this.

The language above is vague enough that it could cover any host systems
you are running Alpha emulators on or host systems that you are running
VM software on when x86-64 arrives. It might even cover your local network.

That's the one part of the agreement which really stood out for me
because the rest of it looks so reasonable.

[Simon Clubley]

Because I don't believe that vendors should be allowed to look around
your own private systems. I object to Windows 10 telemetry for the
same reason.

Enforcing licences via PAKs and similar methods are extremely reasonable
steps for a vendor to take but not that.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/20 10:49 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>> Lacking imagination again Bill?
>
> No, I just have enough knowledge about how networking really works
> to know there is no way in hell they could find a machine on my
> home network, much less access it. And, it's actually going to
> get even harder when I dump Verizon DSL and start doing all of
> my network management myself.
>

They don't need to. There are various reverse connection options
available where your firewall only ever sees outgoing connections
from your devices.

You are also missing the bit about where the licence requires you
to give reasonable cooperation to VSI.

>>
>> Such products work by having your system go out to some server, and
>> getting back replies.  It can be made to look as if something is coming
>> in.  But it's all replies to something your system sends out.
>
> Exactly. And how does VSI make my firewall pass a connection?
>

Does your firewall block every single outgoing connection to ports 80
and 443 (for example) unless you approve every single outgoing connection ?

>>
>> I'd rather VSI did NOT use such tactics ....
>>
>
> I doubt they will. I think it was just more boilerplate.
>

Until it's removed from the licence, it's legally valid boilerplate.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Many commercial software licenses allow for the vendor to do an
audit to ensure license compliance.

Totally standard and usually not a problem (rumors say that
a license audit from Oracle is not fun).

Arne

[Chris]

Might just be bad choice of words ?. After all, windows has sent back
telemetry to ms for years. Others do similar, with Firefox it's an
option, "to improve the product", as do others.

It's obviously cost VSI time and money to put this together, for no
perceivable gain, so perhaps stop quibbling the detail and concentrate
on the big picture, which is: free to use for non commercial purposes.
Great, a big thanks wouldn't be a bad idea...

Regards,

Chris

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/29/20 1:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2020-07-29, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/29/20 10:49 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>
>>> Lacking imagination again Bill?
>>
>> No, I just have enough knowledge about how networking really works
>> to know there is no way in hell they could find a machine on my
>> home network, much less access it. And, it's actually going to
>> get even harder when I dump Verizon DSL and start doing all of
>> my network management myself.
>>
>
> They don't need to. There are various reverse connection options
> available where your firewall only ever sees outgoing connections
> from your devices.

Still needs to go thru the firewall. Some people don't allow anything
implicitly to go thru. And, any reverse connection requires action on
my part.

>
> You are also missing the bit about where the licence requires you
> to give reasonable cooperation to VSI.

Reasonable has yet to be defined. It could be as simple as them
asking me to periodically send them a log they had VMS generate. If
it's human readable I would not have a problem with that.

>
>>>
>>> Such products work by having your system go out to some server, and
>>> getting back replies.  It can be made to look as if something is coming
>>> in.  But it's all replies to something your system sends out.
>>
>> Exactly. And how does VSI make my firewall pass a connection?
>>
>
> Does your firewall block every single outgoing connection to ports 80
> and 443 (for example) unless you approve every single outgoing connection ?

No, but it can. It wouldn't take Splunk long to flag this traffic.

>
>>>
>>> I'd rather VSI did NOT use such tactics ....
>>>
>>
>> I doubt they will. I think it was just more boilerplate.
>>
>
> Until it's removed from the licence, it's legally valid boilerplate.

Of course it is. But, if this bothers you I hope you aren't using
anything from Microsoft. Their licenses are much more disturbing.
And what about VmWare? Try reading the license agreement for their
free products sometime (the whole thing, even after you get really
bored reading the silly stuff!!)

If they try to get into my systems and can't the worst they can do
is cancel my license. I do not think that is likely. I think people
are making a lot more out of this than is necessary. If you don't
want to play the game leave their toys on the floor and go home.

bill

bill

[gah4]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 4:19:27 AM UTC-7, johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

(snip)

> Is it competing with Red Hat? Is actual RHEL downloadable for free? Not
> as such, as far as I know. Rebranded/debranded variants, maybe. That may
> or may not change following RedHat's takeover by IBM.

What does "actual" mean?

ScientificLinux is Redhat recompiled, with all the "Redhat" changed
to "ScientificLinux". If you want Redhat without paid support,
it is there.

GPL requires source to be downloadable free.
Fermilab compiles the source and distributes the result.

If you could download VMS source, compile it yourself, and run it,
would you do that? Instead of downloading install disks?

[David Goodwin]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 1:33:08 AM UTC+12, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> David Goodwin wrote:
> >
> >Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on it?
>
> In the case of Linux, the license allows free distribution.
>
> In the case of Windows, they want you to register for a Microsoft account
> before allowing you to do so.
>
> There are a lot of reasons why, and a few of them have to do with piracy but
> the vast majority of them have to do with knowing who your potential customers
> might be.

Are potential customers actually allowed to use the Community License? Its strictly non-commercial personal (section 2g) use only so the only potential customers using it would be pretty limited.

Section 2g also looks like it would prevent people setting things like the old deathrow cluster or other free public services (like the Living Computer Museum) from using a Community License.

[gah4]

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:36:56 AM UTC-7, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.

OK, I registered and confirmed the e-mail.

I do notice, though, that there is no VAX option.

I have VAX and Integrity machines, and was especially hoping to get the VAX running again.

[David Goodwin]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:21:32 AM UTC+12, Chris wrote:
> On 07/29/20 18:42, Simon Clubley wrote:

I'd say its for quite a major perceivable gain.

Your typical Windows or Linux developer or sysadmin has never even heard of OpenVMS, let alone knows anything at all about it. Of those that have heard of it most will probably think its some obscure legacy OS and know little else about it.

An OS can't survive without a pool of people who know how to operate it and develop software for it. The Community License *should* be about expanding that pool to ensure the platform remains viable in the future.

[David Goodwin]

VSI isn't allowed to issue licenses for HPE/Compaq/DEC releases so for this Community License program to cover VAX systems VSI would have to produce their own VSI OpenVMS VAX release. They've said they will never do this as there simply isn't any money in it.

Hobbyist VAX use is dead from the end of next year unless you can buy a commercial license or have one transferred to you (for a fee payable to HPE somehow).

[John H. Reinhardt]

If you were hoping for a VAX license then you haven't been paying attention to anything that's been posted here in the last 6 months.

VAX is HP/HPE only. If you didn't get one of the Hobbyist licenses before May then it seems you're out of luck. There has been no responses from HP/HPE to applications on the HP Hobbyist's link nor any response to direct e-mail since then. No HP Hobbyist's PAKS last longer than December 31, 2021.

VSI is only Alpha and Integrity for now and x86 when the 9.1 release comes out in a few months.

--
John H. Reinhardt

[David Goodwin]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 3:14:32 AM UTC+12, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2020-07-28 21:52:01 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply said:
>
> > In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,

I had forgotten about the change to only two PAKs! That does improve things quite substantially.

As a relatively clueless hobbyist new to OpenVMS it was always a bit of a challenge figuring out what minimal set of PAKs I needed to correctly enter via the keyboard to get the machine on the network so I could copy the hobbyist license script across. Or for the VAXen I'd try copy&paste them over a serial line and occasionally run into buffer issues, etc.

A simple account login would improve things. Or just a checksum you enter like most other software these days.

Though that doesn't solve the other problem with these time-limited licenses. Someday my Alphas may well run into the same licensing brick wall as my VAXen.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/29/20 5:04 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
>
> Though that doesn't solve the other problem with these time-limited licenses. Someday my Alphas may well run into the same licensing brick wall as my VAXen.
>

You mean like my PDP-11's and Prime 50-Series and who knows how many
others.

bill

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rfs2hm$762$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >> I am _never_ going to agree to letting VSI management do that.
> >
> > Why not?
>

> Perhaps Simon does not want anyone getting into his porn collection?

Or, worse, find out that he has been reading
alt.sex.fetish.dec-hardware. :-)

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rfse2a$1fam$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=

<ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> Totally standard and usually not a problem (rumors say that
> a license audit from Oracle is not fun).

Except Rdb, is anything from Oracle fun? Except for Ellison, of course!

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <03cdb04c-dc6a-4ff9...@googlegroups.com>,

gah4 <ga...@u.washington.edu> writes:

> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:36:56 AM UTC-7, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> > I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.
>
> OK, I registered and confirmed the e-mail.
>
> I do notice, though, that there is no VAX option.

No-one expected a VAX option.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> (rumors say that
> a license audit from Oracle is not fun).
>

Which is why people are starting to move away from vendors who do
such things when other viable options become available.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-29, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:

> In article <03cdb04c-dc6a-4ff9...@googlegroups.com>,
> gah4 <ga...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:36:56 AM UTC-7, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>> > I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.
>>
>> OK, I registered and confirmed the e-mail.
>>
>> I do notice, though, that there is no VAX option.
>
> No-one expected a VAX option.
>

No-one expects the VAX inquisition. :-)

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rfudib$au4$2...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> On 2020-07-29, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
> > In article <03cdb04c-dc6a-4ff9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > gah4 <ga...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:36:56 AM UTC-7, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> >> > I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a separate one of it's own.
> >>
> >> OK, I registered and confirmed the e-mail.
> >>
> >> I do notice, though, that there is no VAX option.
> >
> > No-one expected a VAX option.
> >
>
> No-one expects the VAX inquisition. :-)

Of course not; Python isn't that popular on VMS. :-)

[John H. Reinhardt]

Section 2g:

"Extending the use of Software to any person or entity other than You as a function of providing services, (i.e.; making the Software available through a commercial timesharing or service bureau) must be authorized in writing by VSI prior to such use and may require additional licenses and fees. You may not publish distribute, resell, or sublicense the Software."

It's not specific about what "providing services" means other than an example citing a commercial timeshare or service bureau. One could argue that providing an Eisner-like service is not commercial, therefore not covered. If you did, you might be expected to ensure that users didn't do commercial work on your publicly available system. This might be a problem. Or at least a lot of policing on your part.

Or maybe it can be solved by just writing VSI and asking if you can do it. The "authorized in writing by VSI" stuff.

--
John H. Reinhardt

[Arne Vajhøj]

I really don't see a problem with hobbyist license being strictly for
personal usage and something like Eisner requiring a special agreement
with VSI.

BTW, isn't Eisner running VSI VMS with a VSI license today??

Arne

[Tom Wade]

That would be something completely different ...... :-)

[Roy Omond]

On 30/07/2020 16:00, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>
> BTW, isn't Eisner running VSI VMS with a VSI license today??
>

Yep:

$ show lice

Active licenses on node EISNER:

------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
Product Producer Units Avail Activ Version Release
Termination
MACRO64 DEC 0 0 100 0.0 (none)
(none)
NOTES DEC 0 0 100 0.0 (none)
(none)
PMDF-MTA INNOSOFT 0 H 0 0.0 1-DEC-2026
(none)
PMDF-TLS INNOSOFT 0 H 0 0.0 1-DEC-2026
(none)
MULTINET PSC 0 H 0 0.0 (none)
(none)
DCLDBG TMESIS 0 0 100 0.0 24-SEP-2013
(none)
SYMBOL TMESIS 0 0 100 0.0 12-JAN-2008
(none)
DOCUMENT TTI 2700 0 1 0.0 (none)
(none)
DOCUMENT TTI 2700 0 1 0.0 (none)
(none)
DOCUMENT TTI 2700 0 1 0.0 (none)
(none)
DOCUMENT TTI 1900 0 1 0.0 (none)
(none)
ALPHA-LP VSI 0 H 0 0.0 (none)
1-JUN-2021
ALPHA-SYSTEM VSI 0 A 0 0.0 (none)
1-JUN-2021

[IanD]

So the hobbyist licence disallows setting up a cluster?

That's a shame if that's the case

I learnt a fair bit experience wise doing this with the HP alpha version of their hobbyist program, playing with shadow sets, breaking a cluster by forcing certain things and then trying to work out how to recover

I ran it on an esxi host on windows using an emulator and set up a 3 node cluster with shadow sets etc. Slow as hell but still fun

Nothing commercial but I did loosely model it on a setup in a place I was working as I used the cluster 'experience' gained to be more confident in being ready for various calamities that may have arisen in that workplace

I had rdb running in the cluster. Would liked to have got acms going but I didn't week with it anymore so let that one slide

I'm looking for the equivalent in the VSI hobbyist program, non commercial but fully expandable including clustering

While I don't support the loose wording and perhaps misunderstood meaning of allowing VSI to connect and poke around on a hobbyist system, I would fully comply with and have no issues with VSI at any point in time requesting any logs, audit files, configuration files, listings etc of anything running on any hobbyist system I would care to run and would comply with that information being supplied within a reasonable timeframe

VSI are not the enemy here and I'm sure over time will further tweak the licensing of the hobbyist program or at least that would be my hope

In my workplace, I just discovered there is a specialty OS division that apparently is running OpenVMS.
I was thinking of contacting them and letting them know that I've worked with OpenVMS for many years and can assist should they ever want the help.

Using the hobbyist program to refresh my skills would be one way I could help keep OpenVMS sightly more viable in the workplace by increasing the knowledge base

I don't use OpenVMS anymore in my immediate job, sad, but I still would like to keep my skills up by using it at home and using it in a clustered configuration, if the hobbyist program disallows this then that's disappointing and I guess I'll just have to wait until such a time that it does

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/30/2020 1:24 PM, IanD wrote:
> So the hobbyist licence disallows setting up a cluster?
>
> That's a shame if that's the case

Either it is the case that *or* you need to request a separate license
per node *or* it is a copy paste from commercial license by mistake.

:-)

Arne

[John H. Reinhardt]

I'm guessing that DECUServe is running with special dispensation since it's housed in VSI's data center and run by VSI employees. Notice also that the VSI PAKS expire in a year also. So even these aren't exempt from the yearly cut off.

It's nice to see that apparently the two license PAKS supply the licensing for Most of the products in use. ALPHA-LP must work for the languages. I see the MultiNet License from Process. If that wasn't there would one of the other PAKs cover TCP/IP networking? ALPHA-SYSTEM perhaps?

--
John H. Reinhardt

[gah4]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-7, Simon Clubley wrote:

(snip)

> Because I don't believe that vendors should be allowed to look around
> your own private systems. I object to Windows 10 telemetry for the
> same reason.

> Enforcing licences via PAKs and similar methods are extremely reasonable
> steps for a vendor to take but not that.
> Simon.

I was just today looking at the USPS rules for media mail (used to be book
rate, but you can send video tape or computer disks). The post office is
allowed to open the package and verify that it is one of the allowed items,
and charge regular rate if it isn't. Seems fair to me.

As well as I know, one thing you aren't allowed to do with hobby license
is run a commercial service. If you start advertising your service on the
web, and they see it, they are allowed to ask you. Or if they have some
other reason to suspect that you are not following the rules.

Consider the normal (yes it might not apply) rules for probably cause.

The police are allowed to search you, your car, house, etc., if they
have "probable cause" to suspect something is going on. Random
searching does not count.

VSI can even send someone out to look at your machine, and
presumably ask you to show that you aren't doing what they have
evidence that you did.

Even more than probably cause, consider the cost. They would need
a lot of reason to suspect something to make it worth the cost, but
if you give them that reason, expect them to knock on your door.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rfuort$6at$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Tom Wade

<nos...@void.blackhole.mx> writes:

> >>>> I do notice, though, that there is no VAX option.
> >>>
> >>> No-one expected a VAX option.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No-one expects the VAX inquisition. :-)
> >
> > Of course not; Python isn't that popular on VMS. :-)
> >
>
> That would be something completely different ...... :-)

s|parrot|VAX|w

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <b8d4e759-7a5a-4d13...@googlegroups.com>,

IanD <iloveo...@gmail.com> writes:

> So the hobbyist licence disallows setting up a cluster?
>
> That's a shame if that's the case

I think it is unclear. Maybe you need a separate license for each node.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2020-07-28 kl. 18:36, skrev John H. Reinhardt:
> I know it's been mentioned in another thread but I thought it deserved a
> separate one of it's own.
>

> Camiel announced on the DEC Computer Users Facebook page
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/DEC.users/> and the OpenVMS Facebook page
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/308062552560462/> that the VSI OpenVMS
> Community License Program is open for business.
>
> The VSI News entry is here:
> https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/?fbclid=IwAR2BDg5QflHaGTtfMbTcgqe2BK0B-MBy7pPtnCuCiYHC6GUE84uMva9hnJw
>
>
> The VSI application page is here:
> https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/
> The Community License Agreement is here:
> https://vmssoftware.com/services/community-license/agreement/
>
>
> Some discussion has already started about the terms which include mention
> of running only one copy at a time.  I don't know how that can work out
> with a VMScluster.
>
>

Apart from the confirmation email when filling in the form,
has anyone had any other communication back to them?

[David Goodwin]

Nope. I filled out the form, got the email, clicked the link to verify, a web page opened that said something I can't remember and that's about where it is for me. No further emails or anything.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Right, that web page just confirmed that the email address was "verified".
But then, it was Friday and it has been a weekend since then... :-)

[John H. Reinhardt]

I got my verification link email at 12:08PM CDT on Tuesday, 28-JUL-2020 and nothing since then. So roughly 3.5 business days waiting so far. If it's a manual vetting of applications, they may have gotten quite a few to sift through. As I remember, it took 5 days to get a reply from a request for an ISP application.

--
John H. Reinhardt

[supers...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 5:52:05 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <c55e9dad-38d6-443d...@googlegroups.com>,

> David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why is registration necessary? Given I can download and install linux
> > (and even Windows!) without filling out any forms why does VSI insist on
> > it?
>

> Because VMS is not Linux. If you want something which behaves like
> Linux, use Linux.
>

> > How many people are going to think about giving it a try only to be
> > put off by a registration form and having to mess around with license
> > PAKs? Seems like an unnecessary barrier to me.
>
> Almost everyone already has such experience.
>

> > If getting it in as many hands as possible to grow the number of
> > OpenVMS users is the goal an ISO with the licenses pre-loaded would
> > provide a much quicker and easier experience.
>
> I don't think that that is the goal.
>
> If it turns out to be roughly equivalent to the old hobbyist license we
> should count our blessings.
>
> Presumably Alpha, Itanium, and x86 options are available. Does Alpha
> have to be a VSI release of VMS for Alpha?

VMS is not linux is the most relevant statement ever made