[Info-vax] newVMS, was: Re: [OT] Abbreviations, was: Re: Desperately Seeking OpenVMS ecosystem

[JF Mezei]

>> However, those sites don't provide enough income to continue with VMS
>> in it's current form else HP would not carrying it's current actions,
>> and most new potential VMS users will want a operating system with
>> comparable capabilities to current operating systems as a minimum.


An olympic athlete who stops training will quickly fall behind and no
longer win any races and fall to the wayside.

An operating system that is no longer marketed and no longer developped
to provide unique modern features will fall to the wayside.

The fact that VMS has lost the race isn't so much because of VMS, it is
because its successive owners failed to continue to develop , market and
price it to remain competitive and a market leader as it used to be.

The damage started decades ago. It would take a hell of a long time and
a huge effort to repair the damage done over the last 20 years.


At the end of the day, Gartner was right when it was first to claim VMS
was dead. The big sign was when Digital started to focus more on OSF-1
(later DEC Unix and Tru64).

This was all about greed. DEC had an installed VMS customer base and
didn't want to cannabalise those sales by making VMS competitive. By
going unix, DEC cannabalised not VMS sales, but VMS itself.