5 ms·
> But despite its name, OpenVMS is still actually not open. This is a very anachronistic complaint - DEC renamed VMS to OpenVMS in 1992, and at the time “open”
by skissane 2y ago
> But despite its name, OpenVMS is still actually not open.
This is a very anachronistic complaint - DEC renamed VMS to OpenVMS in 1992, and at the time “open” had nothing to do with “open source” since that phrase wasn’t even coined until 1998.
In 1992, “Open” meant “open standards”/“open systems” - support for industry standards instead of proprietary ones - most importantly POSIX. VMS became OpenVMS when it acquired POSIX compatibility. And other vendors used the same branding-IBM offered mainframe POSIX compatibility under the names OpenEdition (MVS) and OpenExtensions (VM)
- KerrAvon 2y agoIt’s not anachronistic to make this complaint about a product still being sold in 2025. The product name is now an anachronism.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- technothrasher 2y ago> since that phrase wasn’t even coined until 1998. This idea that Christine Peterson invented the term open source in 1998 is revisionist history. I personally remember the term being used during the early 90's, and here's a Usenet thread from 1990 that backs up my memory: https://web.archive.org/web/20220213152832/https://www.tech-insider.org/personal-computers/research/1990/1126.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220213152832/https://www.tech-... (The relevant text is a little way down in the thread: "BSD's open source policy meant that user developed software could be ported among platforms...") Heck, here's a Caldera press release from 1996 that argues directly against your point that OpenVMS couldn't have been confused with open source. In the press release, Caldera announce their "OpenDOS" which is, they say, an "OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS" https://web.archive.org/web/20200521004332/http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200521004332/http://www.xent.c...
- icedchai 2y agoI agree and remember similar. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else says that "open source" doesn't mean "Open Source" in the "official" (whatever that means) sense. Wikipedia seems to support the revisionist history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
- skissane 2y agoI don’t agree it is “revisionist” history. Yes, people used phrases like “open source code” prior to 1998, but without a clear and universally agreed meaning - pre-1998, “open source” could just mean the source code was available under unspecified terms, possibly with significant strings attached (e.g. commercial use requires paid license, no redistribution of modified versions, etc). It was only circa 1998 that “open source” came to clearly mean the Open Source Definition In fact, in a pre-1998 sense, VMS (“Open” or not) had “open source” in that customers could order source listings. Yes we’d now call that something more like “source available” but that category wasn’t clearly distinguished from “open source” back then In any event, go read trade magazines from the early 1990s, you’ll find talk of “open systems” in almost every issue, the phrase “open source” rarely if ever occurs
- scripturial 2y agoYou are acting like the term open source has a clearer and more agreed upon meaning than it did back then. Perhaps the idea of a more standard definition has grown, but people still use it confusingly today.
- ofrzeta 2y agoIf I remember correctly it was more or less coined as an alternative to "Free Software" which wasn't as industry-compatible. I also remember a lot of discussions (and essays by Stallman) about how Open Source is not Free Software as it lacked the enforcement of freedom that is the GPL.
- sim7c00 2y agocurrent open-source also has all sorts of strings attached depending on the licences -_-. wanna start that debate really?