In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] (Steve
n J. Madsen) writes:
>       I've never heard the security argument for VMS before.  The one I've
> most often heard is that VMS is, simply put, *rock* solid.  If you want
> hackability and portability and all of the things that go with UNIX, that's
> what you use.  If you have a system that simple *cannot* go down or heads
> will roll, you use VMS.
 
Actually, DEC tries to emphasize both of these points.  VMS was designed
from the ground up with security in mind.  It comes in 2 flavors: regular
VMS (C2 security) and SEVMS (B1 security) (If memory serves, only 2 systems
have ever achieved A level security - one was a Honeywell system and I
don't remember the other).  Many of the security features now being added
to Unix systems (shadow passwords, ACLs, etc.) have been features on VMS
since Version 1.0.
 
Reliability is another feature that DEC has been emphasizing lately.
Occassionally, readers on comp.os.vms will have contests to see who's VMS
system has been up the longest.  Generally, the responses are measured in
hundreds (if not thousands) of days with no downtime.  In addition to OS
stability, VMS clusters add addition reliability.  You'll see many
companies (such as Microsoft, Novell, etc.) use VMS for many of their core
systems because of the 365x7 features of VMS.
 
--
                                     Kent Covert, Software Coordinator
                                     Miami Computing and Information Services
                                     Miami University, Oxford, OH
                                     [log in to unmask]