On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:15:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/10/08 17:28, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:42:11PM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote: > >> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:43:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > [snip] > > > >>> And a workstation running OpenVMS was considered so unhackable at > >>> DEFCON9 that it wasn't allowed back the next year. > >> and VMS, unlike unix, since the beginning was planned with solid > >> security in mind. In the times where classification into A,B,C,D > >> security made sense, there were VMS B-certified machines (the maximum > >> level, except for the lack of a formal mathemetical proof of that level > >> of security). And Digital never had to hide the code from the eyes of > >> the world, so that everybody could know the quality of the code (any > >> reference to proprietary software widely used today, and which is not of > >> the same level of quality as VMS, is purely wanted). > > > > I'll have to look at OpenVMS. Is it still maintained? > > Sure. HP still makes lots of money off of it. > > > Will it run on > > my old 486? > > Well, no. But you might find a VAXstation of similar power on Ebay.
Thanks, I had a look at the wikipedia article for OpenVMS. It seems that the Open is a misnomer. Is anybody working on an OpenOpenVMS? :) Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]