[Info-vax] OpenSSL CSWS-2.2-1

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 4/7/19 12:05 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2019-04-07 kl. 17:49, skrev 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.
> 
> Neil posted one example from one specific company. I can post another
> example from another specific company that did the opposite. So then
> we are even, right?

Even in this race is a loser.
Example:  There are 100 companies running HPE VMS.
           50 move to VSI VMS.
           50 move to Linux or Windows.

Even, right?

> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Everyone's licences will expire when the support from HPE ends.
> What would the "right time" be otherwise?

And how many of them will be left with a bitter taste in their mouth.
And before you say none, how many people here really dislike HP/HPE
over the past treatment of VMS?  And, how many of these will choose
to take it out on VMS rather than HPE who will have left the game.

> 
>>
>>>   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.
> 
> The usual x86 server replacement period is 3-4 years. How could it
> then be an issue to replace some 10-15 year old Alpha with x86?

We are  not talking about replacing the Alphas.  We are talking
about having to develop software on the new machine while still
running on the Alpha.  This is not a light switch solution where
you can turn one off turn the other on and continue operations.


> 
>> 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...
> 
> What "negative picture". They have transferred the maintenance
> of VMS to someone else and are winding down their own business.
> What else could they do?

Actively work on convincing their current installed VMS base
to move over to VSI.  Anybody heard about them doing that?

> 
>> that HPE continues to paint, it isn't going to get better.
>>
>> Tell me,
> 
> Ask VSI if you need to know.


bill