[Info-vax] OpenSSL CSWS-2.2-1

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 4/7/19 12:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/7/2019 10:21 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'm not aware of VSI's pricing, but, if long term support is desired, 
> then I personally think it is just stupid to charge any significant 
> re-licensing fees.  That just means they won't get the support money.

He didn't say how much it was.  he said they would not approve it.
The one may not have been the reason for the other.

> 
> It would be interesting to know just what fees were quoted.  And for how 
> many systems.  Be a good indicator of which side, or both, are being 
> unreasonable.

 From their own point of view, I doubt either is unreasonable.

> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 one was already considering dropping support it can
>> become very hard to justify the needed expense when one
>> has other platforms that more than supply the revenue
>> to keep the company successful.
> 
> Well, you just made a big leap there Bill, with nothing to justify it. I 
> did not notice Neil mentioning any plans to drop support, or move to 
> alternates.

In that paragraph I was talking about Intersystems and Cache.
While some have said they heard otherwise the web page still
says no new VMS versions.  If no new VMS versions are going
to be forthcoming people using Intersystems Cache on VMS
have only two choices.  Stay where they are to move to a
system that has a path forward.

> 
>> Sadly, I think this forced change may be more detrimental
>> to the continued success of VMS than people either expect
>> or want.  And, the way HPE is handling their end (at least
>> from what I can see and my perception of it) is not going
>> to help.  They wanted to kill VMS.  I think they still do
>> because its continued success would reflect badly on their
>> decision to kill it.  I expect they will do nothing to aids
>> in VSI's successful revival of VMS and quite the contrary
>> will do all they can to scuttle it.
> 
> If HP(e) wanted to kill VMS, all they had to do was not give it to VSI.

If they did that they would live the possible bad press of their
failure with VMS to come back and haunt them in the future.  Now,
if VMS fails the blame lands squarely on VSI's shoulders.

> 
> Then again, they may have had some legal reasons to do so.  Doesn't mean 
> they want VSI to succeed.

I don;t think they care about VSI.  I think it is all about VMS
and corporate image.

> 
> The bottom line, VSI should be taking the "long view" if they want to 
> succeed.


I am sure they are. But I also think that it is a long uphill
battle and HPE, who could be helping at no real cost to themselves
are actually doing the opposite.

bill