I got the email this morning for the new CLP x86. It had general instructions and then two links - one for a set of detailed instructions for using Oracle VirtualBox to create a VM and the link to a ZIP archive with the x86 vmdk files. There are two separate files which make up the whole disk. I up loaded them to my ESXi host system and created a VM with the same settings as my current OpenVMS x86 systems except the disk was pointed to the uploaded community.vmdk

At the BOOTMGR prompt just doing a "BOOT" command failed with

%VMS_BOOTMGR-E-COMMAND, 0x00 is not a suitable boot device.

So I did a "DEV" command to get the name of the OpenVMS boot disk and used that and it started right away

BOOTMGR> DEV

BOOTABLE DEVICES: B = BootMgr Device, V = Default VMS Boot Device

B DKA0 (HD) = FS0 UEFI: V9_2_2 VMS: V922 5120 MB SCSI Disk

BOOTMGR> BOOT DKA0
Booting...

%%%%%%%%%%% VSI OpenVMS (tm) x86-64 %%%%%%%%%%%

_______________________________________________

GRAPHICAL OUTPUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
USE A TERMINAL UTILITY FOR ACCESS
_______________________________________________

VSI Primary Kernel SYSBOOT Nov 9 2023 12:17:04

%SYSBOOT-I-VMTYPE, Booting as a VMware (tm) Guest

VMS Software, Inc. OpenVMS (TM) x86_64 Operating System, V9.2-2
Copyright 2023 VMS Software, Inc.

MDS Mitigation active, variant verw(MD_CLEAR)
%DECnet-I-LOADED, network base image loaded, version = 05.92.05

I have not had much time to work with it but here are the products and the licenses installed

$ product show product *
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
PRODUCT KIT TYPE STATE
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
VMSPORTS X86VMS PERL534 T5.34-0 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS AVAIL_MAN_BASE V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS C V7.5-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CMS V4.8-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CXX V10.1-1 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DECNET_PLUS V9.2-E Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DECSET V13.0-1 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS DTM V4.5-6 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF V1.8 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF_SUPPORT V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS ENVMGR V1.9-5 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS FORTRAN V8.5-8 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS KERBEROS V3.3-2A Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS MMS V4.0-4 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENSSH V8.9-1G Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENVMS V9.2-2 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL111 V1.1-1W Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL3 V3.0-11 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS TCPIP V6.0-23 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS VMS V9.2-2 Oper System Installed
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
20 items found
$ show lice

Active licenses on node V922:

------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release Termination
BASIC VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
C VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
COBOL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CXX-V VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
DTM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
FORTRAN VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
LSE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
MMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
OPENVMS-X86-HAOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
PASCAL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VOLSHAD VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
$

Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS. Neither is BASIC, COBOL nor PASCAL for languages. If you had the foresight to download the FT versions of those then you could install and run them. Licenses for clustering and volume shadowing are supplied so you can still work with VMSclusters.

I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems

--
John H. Reinhardt

On 4/1/2024 4:32 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> I got the email this morning for the new CLP x86. It had general instructions
> and then two links - one for a set of detailed instructions for using Oracle
> VirtualBox to create a VM and the link to a ZIP archive with the x86 vmdk
> files. There are two separate files which make up the whole disk. I up loaded
> them to my ESXi host system and created a VM with the same settings as my
> current OpenVMS x86 systems except the disk was pointed to the uploaded
> community.vmdk
>
> At the BOOTMGR prompt just doing a "BOOT" command failed with
>
> %VMS_BOOTMGR-E-COMMAND, 0x00 is not a suitable boot device.
>
> So I did a "DEV" command to get the name of the OpenVMS boot disk and used that
> and it started right away
>
> BOOTMGR> DEV
>
> BOOTABLE DEVICES: B = BootMgr Device, V = Default VMS Boot Device
>
> B DKA0 (HD) = FS0 UEFI: V9_2_2 VMS: V922 5120 MB
> SCSI Disk
>
> BOOTMGR> BOOT DKA0
> Booting...
>
> %%%%%%%%%%% VSI OpenVMS (tm) x86-64 %%%%%%%%%%%
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GRAPHICAL OUTPUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
> USE A TERMINAL UTILITY FOR ACCESS
> _______________________________________________
>
> VSI Primary Kernel SYSBOOT Nov 9 2023 12:17:04
>
> %SYSBOOT-I-VMTYPE, Booting as a VMware (tm) Guest
>
>
> VMS Software, Inc. OpenVMS (TM) x86_64 Operating System, V9.2-2
> Copyright 2023 VMS Software, Inc.
>
> MDS Mitigation active, variant verw(MD_CLEAR)
> %DECnet-I-LOADED, network base image loaded, version = 05.92.05
>
>
> I have not had much time to work with it but here are the products and the
> licenses installed
>
> $ product show product *
> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
> PRODUCT KIT TYPE STATE
> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
> VMSPORTS X86VMS PERL534 T5.34-0 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS AVAIL_MAN_BASE V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS C V7.5-9 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS CMS V4.8-9 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS CXX V10.1-1 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS DECNET_PLUS V9.2-E Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS DECSET V13.0-1 Platform Installed
> VSI X86VMS DTM V4.5-6 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF V1.8 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF_SUPPORT V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS ENVMGR V1.9-5 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS FORTRAN V8.5-8 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS KERBEROS V3.3-2A Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS MMS V4.0-4 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS OPENSSH V8.9-1G Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS OPENVMS V9.2-2 Platform Installed
> VSI X86VMS SSL111 V1.1-1W Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS SSL3 V3.0-11 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS TCPIP V6.0-23 Full LP Installed
> VSI X86VMS VMS V9.2-2 Oper System Installed
> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
> 20 items found
> $ show lice
>
> Active licenses on node V922:
>
> ------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
> Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release Termination
> BASIC VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> C VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> CMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> COBOL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> CXX-V VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> DTM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> FORTRAN VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> LSE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> MMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> OPENVMS-X86-HAOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> PASCAL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> VMSCLUSTER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> VOLSHAD VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
> $
>
>
> Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS. Neither is BASIC, COBOL
> nor PASCAL for languages. If you had the foresight to download the FT versions
> of those then you could install and run them. Licenses for clustering and
> volume shadowing are supplied so you can still work with VMSclusters.
>
>
> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to
> my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>

You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I thought of. So,
did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?

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

On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/1/2024 4:32 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>> I got the email this morning for the new CLP x86.  It had general instructions
>> and then two links - one for a set of detailed instructions for using Oracle
>> VirtualBox to create a VM and the link to a ZIP archive with the x86 vmdk
>> files.  There are two separate files which make up the whole disk.  I up loaded
>> them to my ESXi host system and created a VM with the same settings as my
>> current OpenVMS x86 systems except the disk was pointed to the uploaded
>> community.vmdk
>>
>> At the BOOTMGR prompt just doing a "BOOT" command failed with
>>
>> %VMS_BOOTMGR-E-COMMAND,  0x00 is not a suitable boot device.
>>
>> So I did a "DEV" command to get the name of the OpenVMS boot disk and used that
>> and it started right away
>>
>> BOOTMGR> DEV
>>
>> BOOTABLE DEVICES: B = BootMgr Device, V = Default VMS Boot Device
>>
>>  B  DKA0        (HD) = FS0    UEFI: V9_2_2       VMS: V922         5120  MB
>> SCSI Disk
>>
>> BOOTMGR> BOOT DKA0
>> Booting...
>>
>> %%%%%%%%%%% VSI OpenVMS (tm) x86-64 %%%%%%%%%%%
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>       GRAPHICAL OUTPUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
>>       USE A TERMINAL UTILITY FOR ACCESS
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> VSI Primary Kernel SYSBOOT Nov  9 2023 12:17:04
>>
>> %SYSBOOT-I-VMTYPE, Booting as a VMware (tm) Guest
>>
>>
>>         VMS Software, Inc. OpenVMS (TM) x86_64 Operating System, V9.2-2
>>                     Copyright 2023 VMS Software, Inc.
>>
>>   MDS Mitigation active, variant verw(MD_CLEAR)
>> %DECnet-I-LOADED, network base image loaded, version = 05.92.05
>>
>>
>> I have not had much time to work with it but here are the products and the
>> licenses installed
>>
>> $ product show product *
>> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
>> PRODUCT                              KIT TYPE    STATE
>> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
>> VMSPORTS X86VMS PERL534 T5.34-0      Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS AVAIL_MAN_BASE V9.2-2     Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS C V7.5-9                  Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS CMS V4.8-9                Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS CXX V10.1-1               Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS DECNET_PLUS V9.2-E        Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS DECSET V13.0-1            Platform    Installed
>> VSI X86VMS DTM V4.5-6                Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF V1.8              Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF_SUPPORT V9.2-2    Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS ENVMGR V1.9-5             Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS FORTRAN V8.5-8            Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS KERBEROS V3.3-2A          Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS MMS V4.0-4                Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS OPENSSH V8.9-1G           Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS OPENVMS V9.2-2            Platform    Installed
>> VSI X86VMS SSL111 V1.1-1W            Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS SSL3 V3.0-11              Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS TCPIP V6.0-23             Full LP     Installed
>> VSI X86VMS VMS V9.2-2                Oper System Installed
>> ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
>> 20 items found
>> $ show lice
>>
>> Active licenses on node V922:
>>
>> ------- Product ID --------    ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
>> Product            Producer    Units PCL   Activ Version Release    Termination
>> BASIC              VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> C                  VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> CMS                VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> COBOL              VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> CXX-V              VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> DTM                VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> FORTRAN            VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> LSE                VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> MMS                VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> OPENVMS-X86-HAOE   VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> PASCAL             VSI             6  0     1      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> VMSCLUSTER         VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT  VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> VOLSHAD            VSI             6  1     0      0.0  (none)      30-APR-2025
>> $
>>
>>
>> Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.  Neither is BASIC, COBOL
>> nor PASCAL for languages.  If you had the foresight to download the FT versions
>> of those then you could install and run them.  Licenses for clustering and
>> volume shadowing are supplied so you can still work with VMSclusters.
>>
>>
>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to
>> my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>
>
> You must have been reading my mind.  That was the first thing I thought of.  So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
>

Yes, they did. I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new licenses and ran it. You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not included but , again, I think that's part of HAOE.

Active licenses on node SCALZI:

------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release Termination
ABS-CLIENT-X86 VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
ABS-SERVER-X86 VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
ACMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
ACMS-REM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
ACMS-RT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
AVAIL-MAN VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
BASIC VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
C VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CARTRIDGE-SERVER-V VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
CMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
COBOL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CXX-V VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
DFG VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
DFS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
DQS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
DTM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
DTR VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
DVNETEXT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
FMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
FMS-RT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
FORMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
FORMS-RT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
FORTRAN VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
GKS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
GKS-RT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
LSE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
MMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
OMNI VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
OPENVMS-X86-BOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
OPENVMS-X86-HAOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
OSAP VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
PASCAL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
PCA VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
RMSJNL VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
RTR-CL VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
RTR-SVR VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
SAVE-SET-MANAGER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
SW-RAID5 VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
TDMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
TDMS-RT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
VAXSET VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
VMSCLUSTER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VOLSHAD VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
X25 VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 1-APR-2024
%SHOW-I-TERMIMM, 31 licenses have terminated or will terminate in 30 days

On 2024-04-01 22:34:53 +0000, John H. Reinhardt said:

> You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some of
> them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not
> included but , again, I think that's part of HAOE.

The FOE foundation operating environment and BOE base operating
environment group PAKs include TCP/IP, DECnet Phase IV, and DECnet-Plus.

Technically, yes, all of the OEs licenses include that as AFAIK they're
all proper supersets.

The mapping of PAKs and groups is available in the
sys$update:vmsinstal_lmfgroups.com data.
License-related doc here is lacking, but then I'm in a charitable mood.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 4/1/2024 6:02 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2024-04-01 22:34:53 +0000, John H. Reinhardt said:
>
>> You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think.  DVNETEXT was not included but , again, I think that's part of HAOE.
>
> The FOE foundation operating environment and BOE base operating environment group PAKs include TCP/IP, DECnet Phase IV, and DECnet-Plus.
>
> Technically, yes, all of the OEs licenses include that as AFAIK they're all proper supersets.
>
> The mapping of PAKs and groups is available in the sys$update:vmsinstal_lmfgroups.com data.
> License-related doc here is lacking, but then I'm in a charitable mood.
>
>
>

VSI is not consistent in it's documentation in some areas. The SPD for Integrity V8.4-2L3 has a nice chart for what is included in the BOE and HAOE but the x86 V9.2 SPD does not. It barely mentions it. I assume that x86 follows I64 but we all know about assumptions.

https://vmssoftware.com/docs/VSI_V842L3_OE_SPD.PDF
https://vmssoftware.com/docs/VSI_V92_OS_SPD.pdf

--
John H. Reinhardt

On 4/1/2024 6:34 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

>> You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I thought of.
>> So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
>>
>
> Yes, they did. I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new licenses
> and ran it. You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some
> of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not included but
> , again, I think that's part of HAOE.

So, at least for now, the fear of needing to re-start with a new VMS image each
year, perhaps is not an issue, at least for those who know their way around VMS.

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

On 4/1/24 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/1/2024 6:34 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>> On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>> You must have been reading my mind.  That was the first thing I
>>> thought of.
>>> So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they did.  I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new
>> licenses
>> and ran it.  You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new
>> PAKs. Some
>> of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think.  DVNETEXT was not
>> included but
>> , again, I think that's part of HAOE.
>
> So, at least for now, the fear of needing to re-start with a new VMS
> image each year, perhaps is not an issue, at least for those who know
> their way around VMS.

It's not an issue today for folks who want to keep running the x86
systems they had running yesterday. But you won't get any patches,
updates, or upgrades to that system. And that's particularly awkward at
the moment, with so many things on x86 not quite finished and some of
the newest products apparently not on the vmdk (e.g., the brand new
BASIC compiler).

On 4/1/2024 8:10 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>
> On 4/1/24 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 4/1/2024 6:34 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>>> You must have been reading my mind.  That was the first thing I thought of.
>>>> So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they did.  I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new licenses
>>> and ran it.  You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some
>>> of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think.  DVNETEXT was not included but
>>> , again, I think that's part of HAOE.
>>
>> So, at least for now, the fear of needing to re-start with a new VMS image each year, perhaps is not an issue, at least for those who know their way around VMS.
>
> It's not an issue today for folks who want to keep running the x86
> systems they had running yesterday.  But you won't get any patches,
> updates, or upgrades to that system. And that's particularly awkward at
> the moment, with so many things on x86 not quite finished and some of
> the newest products apparently not on the vmdk (e.g., the brand new
> BASIC compiler).
>

Hopefully more vital things like upgrades to OpenSSH, SSL which VSI typically puts other places than the Service Portal will be available. But, overall, you're right If you just skim off the PAKS to keep your own install going you forego any product updates that might be released. Even if only yearly updates with each new vmdk

--
John H. Reinhardt

On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
>
> Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.

That seems like a _really_ strange decision. Most people use DECnet-IV and
only a few use DECnet-PLUS.

Does anyone have any ideas what the possible thinking could be here ?

> Neither is BASIC, COBOL nor PASCAL for languages.

BASIC I can understand. COBOL I am not sure the current status of, but not
including PASCAL seems to be a major oversight. I hope it can be downloaded
by new Community Licence users.

>
> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>

Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!"
frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)

If VSI do object to that, hopefully CL users will get a warning first
instead of just being outright banned...

Simon.

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

On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:

>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>
>
> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!"
> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)

I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that. IANAL, but
the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
you get the license onto the system. It seems the vmdk thing is
intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
very well be good for that. As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.

On 2024-04-02, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
>
>>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>>
>>
>> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!"
>> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)
>
> I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that. IANAL, but
> the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
> you get the license onto the system. It seems the vmdk thing is
> intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
> very well be good for that. As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
> is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
>

Normally, that is a very reasonable position to take.

Unfortunately, even when you consider that VSI has the right to decide
how products it makes are made available, nothing about how this has
been handled appears to make any sense. :-(

I just hope there isn't some hidden agenda here.

Simon.

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

On 2024-04-02, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
wrote:
> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
>>
>> Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.
>
> That seems like a _really_ strange decision. Most people use DECnet-IV and
> only a few use DECnet-PLUS.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas what the possible thinking could be here ?

Thinking?! Ha! Clearly this entire community program has been sorely
lacking in the "thinking" department!

But yes, this is yet another demonstration of why installation media and
LP kits being available for community license participants is critical
for those who are actually interested in and knowledgeable about VMS or
who aren't but want to learn. So we can set up *our* systems the way
*we* want to.

I know there are plenty of smart people at VSI working on the VMS code
itself, but I'm sad to see the people making these non-technical
decisions aren't smart at all. Sigh.

-Matthew

On 4/2/2024 8:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
>>
>> Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.
>
> That seems like a _really_ strange decision. Most people use DECnet-IV and
> only a few use DECnet-PLUS.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas what the possible thinking could be here ?

Force people in the direction they want them to go rather than
learning their needs and working to meet them. NOt the first
case of this I have seen and very much in line with what I have
said academia is doing for quite some time now.

>
>> Neither is BASIC, COBOL nor PASCAL for languages.
>
> BASIC I can understand. COBOL I am not sure the current status of, but not
> including PASCAL seems to be a major oversight. I hope it can be downloaded
> by new Community Licence users.
>
>>
>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>
>
> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!"
> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)

Laugh all you want. That was the first thing that came to my mind.
License Violation!!

>
> If VSI do object to that, hopefully CL users will get a warning first
> instead of just being outright banned...
>

Or they could just decide to terminate the program altogether.
That would not surprise me at all.

bill

On 4/2/2024 1:43 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> Unfortunately, even when you consider that VSI has the right to decide
> how products it makes are made available, nothing about how this has
> been handled appears to make any sense. :-(

So true.

comp.os.vms should be full of posts about new open source ported
to VMS not posts about VMS open source listing going offline
due to changes to CLP.

Arne

On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>
> On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied
>>> licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>>
>>
>> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
>> !!!!!!!!"
>> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
>> Licence. :-)
>
> I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that.  IANAL, but
> the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
> you get the license onto the system.  It seems the vmdk thing is
> intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
> very well be good for that.  As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
> is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
>

As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
to DEC) No license was freely transferable. I am not about
to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
in there somewhere.

bill

On 4/2/24 2:53 PM, bill wrote:
> On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied
>>>> licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>>>
>>>
>>> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
>>> !!!!!!!!"
>>> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
>>> Licence. :-)
>>
>> I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that.  IANAL, but
>> the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
>> you get the license onto the system.  It seems the vmdk thing is
>> intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
>> very well be good for that.  As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
>> is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
>>
>
>
> As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
> to DEC)  No license was freely transferable.

Of course for commercial licenses you can't simply double your fun by
putting the same license on two systems because it's a pay-per-use
scenario, but no hobbyist nor community license has ever had that
restriction. Non-transferable in the community license agreement pretty
obviously means you can't give your license to someone else; it has
nothing to do with how many systems you can run that license on. You
are restricted to running on "servers, and/or emulators and/or
hypervisors"; the "and" part of "and/or" and the plural nouns clearly
set the expectation that you can be running more than one system. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to provide licenses for clustering
if you were only allowed to run a single system!

Sure, they could change the agreement or cancel the program entirely or
simply stop providing licenses, as they will be doing for Alpha and
Itanium, but what the agreement in effect today actually says does matter.

>   I am not about
> to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
> in there somewhere.

That's a pity since becoming less ignorant is pretty easy to do:

https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/agreement/

On 4/2/2024 6:08 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>
> On 4/2/24 2:53 PM, bill wrote:
>> On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied
>>>>> licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
>>>> !!!!!!!!"
>>>> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
>>>> Licence. :-)
>>>
>>> I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that.  IANAL, but
>>> the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
>>> you get the license onto the system.  It seems the vmdk thing is
>>> intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
>>> very well be good for that.  As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
>>> is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
>> to DEC)  No license was freely transferable.
>
> Of course for commercial licenses you can't simply double your fun by
> putting the same license on two systems because it's a pay-per-use
> scenario, but no hobbyist nor community license has ever had that
> restriction. Non-transferable in the community license agreement pretty
> obviously means you can't give your license to someone else; it has
> nothing to do with how many systems you can run that license on.  You
> are restricted to running on "servers, and/or emulators and/or
> hypervisors"; the "and" part of "and/or" and the plural nouns clearly
> set the expectation that you can be running more than one system.  It
> wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to provide licenses for clustering
> if you were only allowed to run a single system!
>
> Sure, they could change the agreement or cancel the program entirely or
> simply stop providing licenses, as they will be doing for Alpha and
> Itanium, but what the agreement in effect today actually says does matter.
>
>>    I am not about
>> to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
>> in there somewhere.
>
> That's a pity since becoming less ignorant is pretty easy to do:
>
> https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/agreement/

What would be the purpose of reading that? The Community License
Program is done.

bill

On 03/04/2024 01:13, bill wrote:
> On 4/2/2024 6:08 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/24 2:53 PM, bill wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the
>>>>>> supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
>>>>> !!!!!!!!"
>>>>> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
>>>>> Licence. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that.  IANAL,
>>>> but
>>>> the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about
>>>> how
>>>> you get the license onto the system.  It seems the vmdk thing is
>>>> intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
>>>> very well be good for that.  As far as I can tell the delivery
>>>> mechanism
>>>> is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
>>> to DEC)  No license was freely transferable.
>>
>> Of course for commercial licenses you can't simply double your fun by
>> putting the same license on two systems because it's a pay-per-use
>> scenario, but no hobbyist nor community license has ever had that
>> restriction. Non-transferable in the community license agreement pretty
>> obviously means you can't give your license to someone else; it has
>> nothing to do with how many systems you can run that license on.  You
>> are restricted to running on "servers, and/or emulators and/or
>> hypervisors"; the "and" part of "and/or" and the plural nouns clearly
>> set the expectation that you can be running more than one system.  It
>> wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to provide licenses for clustering
>> if you were only allowed to run a single system!
>>
>> Sure, they could change the agreement or cancel the program entirely or
>> simply stop providing licenses, as they will be doing for Alpha and
>> Itanium, but what the agreement in effect today actually says does
>> matter.
>>
>>>    I am not about
>>> to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
>>> in there somewhere.
>>
>> That's a pity since becoming less ignorant is pretty easy to do:
>>
>> https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/agreement/
>
> What would be the purpose of reading that?  The Community License
> Program is done.
>
> bill
>

It isn't gone, but changed i the way it is administered, so I imagine
the license stays the same, although I imagine they might update it in
line with the changes

--
Chris