[Info-vax] Updated HPE/VSI OpenVMS V8.4-2L1 Marketing Brochures

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
> Of IanD via Info-vax
> Sent: 01-Oct-16 7:34 AM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: IanD <iloveopenvms at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Updated HPE/VSI OpenVMS V8.4-2L1
> Marketing Brochures
> 
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 8:41:42 PM UTC+10,
> clairg... at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > We announced at Boot Camp this week that we will doing an
> 8.4-2L1 release for Alpha. We will get more information out as
> soon as we have completed the detailed planning.
> >
> 
> That's amazing and quite a feat actually!
> 
> I was also meaning having a service where people can call /
> engage and get an assessment of what is needed to move people
> forward and get some help in doing so. The brilliant minds at
VSI
> would be able to give people insights into how they can move
> their platforms forward (a lot would have no idea of even where
> to start)
> 
> I would say a lot of places out there are running in linux /
> windows shops with a side system of OpenVMS and the people
> looking after VMS have little or not enough experience to drag
> the platform forward
> 
> That would take a rather large engagement on behalf of VSI of
> course and it's probably better to focus on getting that x86
port
> done and the come back to helping people move beyond Alpha?
> You cannot do everything and your already dealing with years of
> little movement of movement in VMS
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > >
> >
> > The VSI/HPE agreement does not allow us to make VMS open
> source.
> 
> Yes, I believe it has been mentioned before but what happens
> when you enhance code?
> The enhanced code must belong to VSI ? or is it any derived
work
> based off the bade code still under HPE ownership? (I'm not
> expecting an actual answer as I imagine this would be
commercial
> in confidence but it would be interesting to know)
> 
> If HPE would allow the base code to be rewritten and thereby
> ownership transferred, this would open things a lot and the
open
> source aspect could be further levered
> 
> I'm not just saying 'open source' because I think it's the best
> thing. I advocate open source mainly because it's the current
> model that is attracting all the new minds to the point where
> most people coming out of uni now will refuse to touch anything
> that is not open source - such has been the brainwashing of the
> young! Microsoft has all but caved in to this as well and have
> done an about face
> 
> I advocate open source because I happen to think it's another
> way to remove the stumbling blocks that OpenVMS is already
> facing and it doesn't need more stumbling blocks, it needs to
> make itself as attractive as possible
> 

It's been discussed a thousand times before, but imho, open
source is a terrible strategy for OpenVMS.

> I understand that VSI have probably negotiated the best deal
> they could with HPE at the time, my probing and being the
> antagonist is not meant to be negative about the whole thing
but
> more to put my hat into the ring as to where/what I think would
> help OpenVMS going forward. I know people in academic circles
> and linux is still king because of open source and the
education
> sector is driving the minds of the future coders. I just want
to find
> a way to attract them to OpenVMS if at all possible
> 

I would argue that the one of the big interests at the enterprise
level in Linux is its perceived "free" cost. There is more than
one business case that has been pushed which compares license
costs to Linux (free) vs. its competition (expensive up front
licenses).

I say "perceived" free cost because while there are no up-front
license fees (CAPEX costs that need VP approvals), few med-large
customers adopt Linux without a monthly support contract (OPEX
which the OPS manager can approve as a single line item in his
budget with no visibility) from someone like RH. And these are
not that cheap when you look at all the monthly per VM costs in
an organization. 

I prefer a model which is sometimes referred to as "right
sourcing".

This model is based on one org (VSI) holding the overall
responsibility for the core section of code while at the same
allowing strategic partners with close relationships to the
primary vendor to contribute added value code  (including open
source) as part of the overall distribution model. 

VSI already has their developer program - perhaps this just needs
to be enhanced along with a enhanced distribution model?

Hopefully, the licensing model for the V9+ releases will adapt to
something similar to the Linux model. Financially, much reduced
up front licenses with a monthly support model would potentially
be a big reason to get off IA64/Alpha/VAX and transform to
monthly cash flows into VSI. And by the way - most Customers do
not pay monthly for monthly support contracts. They pay either
annually in one up-front payment for the next 1/2/3 years.

> I appreciate you telling us the details too as long as you know
I'm
> not actually grumbling at yourself or VSI at large, for that
matter.
> I'm just trying to find a way to put OpenVMS's best foot
forward
> in a world that has all but ignored it for far too long
>

>From informal feedback I have heard, it sounds like a great week
was had at the Boot Camp with lots of stuff happening!

:-)

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com