[Info-vax] OpenSSL CSWS-2.2-1

[Dave Froble]

On 4/7/2019 8:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

Web sites are never out of date, or missing information?  BA HA HA HA

>>> 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.

Frankly, I'd be afraid of any more HP(e) help, seeing what they have 
done in the past, and even now.


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486