[Info-vax] OpenSSL CSWS-2.2-1

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 4/7/19 11:20 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 4/7/19 9:21 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 4/7/19 10:06 AM, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>>
>>> We attempted to move support from HPE to VSI last year but our 
>>> management would not approve the purchase of software relicensing by 
>>> VSI. 
>>
>> I know this is not what people want to hear and I will be blamed
>> for the bad news (always shoot the messenger!) but I have seen
>> this as a potential sticking point since the announcement of the
>> creation of VSI.
> 
> If you were the conveyor of non-bogus information, then people might be
> more receptive.
> 

Why do you say it was bogus?  Neil just posted an example from his
own personal experience supporting it.  Others have been mentioned
here in the past.  And I remember similar (for other products) from
my days in the business and academic world.

>> When the recent discussion about Intersystems was going
>> on I saw it again.  There is a very finite expense in
>> VARs moving to the new version of VMS.  Both on the
>> current architecture and on the future new architecture.
>> One must buy new equipment to develop, test and maintain
>> the product on the new architecture.  One must buy the
>> new version of the OS and the necessary licenses to use
>> it.  And one must weigh that cost against expected revenues.
> 
> When we moved to VSI from HPE a couple of years ago at the time our HPE
> support contract was expiring, it was a whole lot cheaper to get a
> support contract with VSI including new licenses than to renew with HPE.

You were lucky.  Are everyone's licenses going to expire at just
the right time?

>   So switching to VSI meant saving money immediately, not incurring any
> extra expense.  Our licenses included upgrade rights to the x86_64
> version when it becomes available.

But that doesn't pay for the new equipment which will be an
additional expense.  Management look at everything. If they
have to buy new machines and new software and new licenses
they will be looking at the big picture.  And the competitors
to VMS are going to be more in the front of their minds
because they see the ads on TV during the golf and in  their
trade journals and on billboards when they drive to work.

> 
> People running unsupported will have some cash outlay to switch to VSI.
>   But people running unsupported are not planning for the future anyway.

That's true and I never said it wasn't.  The only people who matter
are the ones spending money.

> 
> As far as buying new hardware to make a platform switch, do you really
> think it will be cheaper to maintain 10-20-year-old Alpha or Integrity
> hardware over the next five years than to get some brand new x86 kit (or
> possibly just spin up some VM instances on a host most companies already
> have available)?

No, I don't think it will be cheaper.  But, going back to the
Intersystems example.  Dou you think it will be cheaper (or
more profitable) to invest in the move to X86-64 VMS than to
just let the VMS support wither and die?  The sell their
product on a lot of long-term viable systems.  Is there really
likely to be enough business left on VMS to justify the expense
of maintaining it.

Not saying it is a bad idea, just trying to get past the blinders
of people here and point out that the picture is not as rosy as
some would like it to be.  It's hard sell and with the negative
picture that HPE continues to paint, it isn't going to get better.

Tell me, has HPE provided VSI with their VMS customer list so that
VSI can actively talk with these people about migrating?  Last
thing about I saw about that here was "No".

bill