[Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Bill Gunshannon skrev den 2015-03-02 15:14:
> In article <mctu35$hvc$1 at dont-email.me>,
> 	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-28 21:24:33 +0000, David Froble said:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As it is currently priced and configured, VMS is not competitive in
>>>>> the NUC server market — again, not outside of the VMS installed base.
>>>>
>>>> Now, here is where I see a problem.  What is the use of charging
>>>> license fees?  None that I can see, and, I can see disadvantages in
>>>> trying to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Let's look first at the current user market.  How many VMS licenses
>>>> will they be buying.  I suggest zero.  They already have their systems
>>>> and licenses, and if upgrading the HW, will most likely feel they
>>>> should be able to transfer their existing licenses.  No money to be
>>>> made here.
>>>
>>> It'll be interesting to see how that will work in practice, with HP
>>> providing the Itanium hardware and VSI the software, and HP and other
>>> vendors providing x86-64 and VSI providing the software.  VSI is going
>>> to want revenue, and HP isn't going to want to cut too far into their
>>> server hardware revenues.    That there are now two vendors involved in
>>> each server sale is part of why I've wondered whether VSI will be drawn
>>> into packaged or even private-branded hardware, too.    configurations
>>> with VSI-co-branded and/or pre-packaged HP ProLiant servers, combined
>>> with the VSI software.  With packaged and supported server
>>> configurations — with VSI co-branded and/or vendor pre-configured and
>>> pre-tested servers server hardware — the end-customers aren't dealing
>>> with which NICs, RAID controllers, and other widgets will work with VMS.
>>>
>>>> Ok, the mythical "new customer".  They see free OSs all over the
>>>> place.   They are not going to like license fees.  Go ahead, chase
>>>> potential business away.
>>>
>>> Ayup.  That's not an easy decision, though.   These pricing decisions
>>> make or break a company's future, and can massively disrupt the finances.
>>>
>>>> So what's better, a limited number of people exposed to VMS, or, maybe
>>>> a few more people exposed to VMS?  The best thing that could happen to
>>>> VSI would be for as many people being exposed to VMS as possible.
>>>> Then, where it's going to happen, make money of service contracts,
>>>> which are recurring, not one time.  It it's (service) not going to
>>>> happen, then those people sure wouldn't have paid any license fees,
>>>> and so there is no loss.
>>>
>>> Service contracts and patch access is one approach to recurring revenue,
>>> and can tie into automated tools and related mechanisms that could
>>> theoretically be added into OpenVMS, if VSI sought to avoid using the HP
>>> HPSC patch-portal model.    SaaS is another approach that would
>>> undoubtedly get discussed in these business discussions.  HP had some of
>>> this with iCAP and LMF features, and various vendors have tested license
>>> subscriptions.  Periodic SaaS licensing means a vendor can shepherd many
>>> of its customers forward onto more current software, based on escalating
>>> prices for older and aging versions, too.  Some customers won't want
>>> these SaaS software "rentals", though.
>>>
>>>> This idea that "we have to charge license fees, people should pay for
>>>> VMS" just isn't going to work.  VSI does NOT have to charge license
>>>> fees, unless HP is making them do so.
>>>
>>> VSI has stated that they're expecting to follow the HP pricing and sales
>>> model, at least based on the initial VSI discussions.
>>>
>>>> Even if there are people, (hobbyists for example), who do not pay a
>>>> license fee, not contract for support, VSI still has their product in
>>>> front of more rather than less people, and who knows when one of those
>>>> people might cause VSI to gain a new service customer?
>>>
>>> Ayup.  This all combines with whatever VSI might decide for the hobbyist
>>> and the partner programs.
>>>
>>>>> An as-yet-unavailable box that might be somewhat faster, but without
>>>>> a competitive story around applications and integration and pricing?
>>>>> Not gonna sell many of those.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but the functionality of the systems is limited and well known.
>>>>>> Compared to Windows an Linux far less need for frequnt security
>>>>>> patches etc, and that seves costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet on Windows security and tools and defenses over VMS security,
>>>>> but that's not likely going to convince you.  Put VMS and third-party
>>>>> VMS applications under the same sort of scrutiny that Windows has
>>>>> been under, and VMS will likely crack.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't agree.  Whiel weendoze may not be so bad, it runs browsers,
>>>> and they are maybe the worse offender.  More likely the user who runs
>>>> with full privs and likes to click on something to see a song and
>>>> dance, and unseen intrusion into their computer.
>>>
>>> Web browsers are big targets, but there are many other targets in an
>>> average network-facing operating system, and there are certainly reasons
>>> to have web-related tools around — I've just started looking at gRPC
>>> <http://googledevelopers.blogspot.com/2015/02/introducing-grpc-new-open-source-http2.html>,
>>> for instance, and there are a number of other web-based tools that are
>>> very useful beyond the familiar web browsers.  (No, I haven't yet ported
>>> the gRPC code to VMS; working on a different port right now...)
>>
>> What a web browser does is allows the user to pull in and run just about
>> anything.
>>
>> To much weendoze software requires Administrator privs, and so many
>> (most) ((all)) will run with those privs, and turn off some or all of
>> the security stuff.
>>
>> Put those two together and you have a compromised system.
>
> And yet, people blame Microsoft when a machine gets compromised.
> They provided the tools to prevent it, the user chooses to ignore
> them.
>
>>
>>> As for Windows, Microsoft has done a tremendous amount of work to verify
>>> their source code, to automate the detection of hazardous and deprecated
>>> mechanisms in their source code, to increase the difficulty and the
>>> costs of attacks on Windows, to make downloads and installations easy
>>> and secure, to improve Internet Explorer, and to make the detection and
>>> remediation of security breaches quicker and easier.  Windows 7 is a
>>> pretty solid offering, as are more recent releases.   Yes, there are
>>> still Windows bugs and zero-days around, and likely always will be.
>>> Yes, users can also click through Windows UAC or OS X Gatekeeper, and
>>> get themselves into trouble.   That written, Windows security has been
>>> very heavily tested, and by some very savvy attackers.  Microsoft has
>>> learned more than a few lessons from those attacks, too.
>>
>> There is still the apps that need full privs, and the people who are
>> used to running as administrator, and will continue to do so.  Without a
>> router.
>
> See above.  Don't blame Microsoft for idiot users.  If they didn't sell
> their product to idiots, they would have no customers.
>
> bill
>

And those "idiots" are 99% of the normal user group for normal
standard PCs. Only idiots would call them "idiots"...

The fact that there also is a remaining 1% that concider them
selfs as "non-idiots", speaks more about them then anything else.

Jan-Erik.