[Info-vax] OpenVMS versus Windows/GE Telemetry Control Systems.

[JohnF]

Keith Parris <keithparris_deletethis at yahoo.com> wrote:
> cyberunlimited at gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>  I'm told that HP can't be trusted to continue with OpenVMS
> Martin Fink committed in 2011 to more than a decade of support for 
> OpenVMS: 
> http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Mission-Critical-Computing-Blog/
> HP-puts-customers-first-and-remains-committed-to-Integrity/ba-p/89983
> 
>>  and they may discontinue the Itanium Machines.
> Testimony by Kirk Skaugen of Intel says HP has a contract to receive 
> Itanium chips from Intel through 2022, with an option to renew.
> HP's present Project Odyssey direction commits to continue producing 
> Itanium systems. Poulson (Itanium 9500) systems just shipped, and VMS 
> support is in the works.

I guess that kind of answers my question, in previous thread, about
VMS "fading away". But if not a DOD contract commitment, then why?
Not that I'm complaining, but is the market/revenue-stream alone
(both current and projected over the next 10 years) really big enough
to warrant this commitment? I see few (actually no) requirements for
new VMS development, just maintenance and migration. So HP's VMS revenue,
looking forward, has got to be, as the saying goes, monotonically
decreasing. Trying to convince a manager who wants to migrate
that it's not necessary can't be solely based on the unadorned
fact statements above. To generate sufficient VMS comfort level,
you also need to rationally explain why HP can be relied upon
to see continuing VMS support in its own best interests.
What's that argument?
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j at f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )