[Info-vax] OpenVMS graphics - once more

[David Froble]

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <mrb5q4$1bb$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble
> <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes: 
> 
>> So back to the topic.  Users can have what they need.  VSI might not be
>> able to fund and work on everything.  They will have to pick and choose.
>> It just doesn't seem to me that they have some huge demand for a new
>> browser.  Nor for a windowing system.  Some demand, yes.  Huge, no. 
>>
>> So, where do you think their limited funding and efforts should be
>> spent? 
> 
> Yes, choices must be made.  But presumably VSI would be happy to expand 
> VMS beyond the current user base.  That's part of the idea of getting it 
> to run on truly commodity hardware.  VMS used to be used in many places 
> where it is no longer.  Why was that possible back in the 1980s and 
> early 1990s but is no longer possible today?  Primarily because of lack 
> of a good browser.  Consider Linux.  Most people don't use Office 
> applications or whatever on it, but they do a lot of stuff with 
> browsers.

But, the browsers available, for free, run on Linux.  This is through no effort, 
as far as I know, of those supporting Linux.  Could be wrong.

> Get VMS to run on reasonably cheap hardware, offer a license somewhere 
> between hobbyist and commercial, and there could be an additional 
> revenue stream.

Well, we're back to this again.  My opinion, (we all are allowed at least one), 
is do away with license fees.  Allow commercial usage only with a support contract.

> I think there needs to be a license for non-commercial but non-hobbyist 
> stuff, for a relatively small fee.  Most such people would not buy a 
> full-cost commercial license, but many would be happy to pay a more 
> reasonable price.

I doubt that.

> I also think it would be a good idea to competitively price even full 
> commercial licenses, and have support, at various levels and prices, 
> completely separate from this.
>