[Info-vax] OpenSSL CSWS-2.2-1

[Dave Froble]

On 4/8/2019 4:30 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2019-04-08 19:26:13 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>
>> On 4/8/2019 1:23 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-07 02:59:52 +0000, Craig A. Berry said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/19 8:58 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> So we have CSWS, which everybody obviously knows is a web server.
>>>>
>>>> Not just a web server, but a secure web server from a company named
>>>> Compaq that never knew anything about servers or security.
>>>
>>> CSWS, SWB, the oddly-named-and-why-are-these-even-separate Apache
>>> language modules, T4, etc.
>>> Terms such as LP and "host-based volume shadowing", for that matter.
>>> LMF, PAKs, etc.
>>
>> Host based mirroring might be a bit more understood, but volume
>> shadowing sure isn't all that mysterious.
>
> Once you know to look for it—once you're aware of the jargon—sure.
> Host-based RAID-1 would be the typical jargon.  And jargon can and does
> change over time.

Ayep.  That would be a good name.

>> LMF and PAKs should just go away.
>
> That's up to VSI.
>
>> Usually when a "challenge" is issued, there will be those who pick up
>> the gauntlet.  I figured at least two methods to get past the LMF.
>> No, I'm not saying.  It wasn't to actually do so, just to answer the
>> challenge.
>>
>> Thing is, and it's been said before, LMF isn't to stop piracy.  If
>> someone wants it, they will get it.  Just ask Bill Gates about the
>> Chinese.  So, all LMF does is harrass those who respect it.  Get VMS
>> in front of as many as possible.  Those who will purchase support will
>> do so.  Those who won't don't.  No real loss.
>
> I'm not discussing bypassing LMF. I'm discussing simplifying the
> existing license management.
>
> For many products, a licensee name and a checksum is enough.  There's a
> lot of baggage on OpenVMS left over from the era of each giblet being
> separately licensed, not the least of which is the design of LMF itself.
>
> As for changing the licensing and support and pricing scheme?  That's
> the lifeblood of VSI, and there'll be resistance to anything that might
> negatively effect revenues.
>
> And there are in-built sales and marketing assumptions carried over from
> the DEC era.

Yes, and look at how well that's worked lately.

VSI's future will be based upon support, and to be specific, shpport 
from those customers glad to pay for it.

A while back some were bitching about the cost of Rdb.  Jan-Erik chipped 
in with the statement that the annual support fee was something like 
minutes of production.  From that perspective, any halt in production 
would be VERY expensive.  Thus, the willingness, or even gladness, to 
pay for support.

The other side of the coin is, get VMS in front of as many eyes as 
possible.  The worst that can happen is "nothing".  Anything else is "to 
the good".  Never know what some of that might lead to.  Even a small 
fraction can be profitable.

A VMS "demo disk" should be as simple as one of those Linux disks that 
you put in the reader and are immediately running Linux.  Or WEENDOZE. 
No, there won't be a Solitare game immediately available, but that's not 
your target audience.  Now, a socket based client and echo server, which 
could work with any other system they have, might be a good demo 
program.  "Yep, VMS will work in your environment".

> LMF was designed to be able to implement most any scheme that the
> pricing folks could conceive.  It's bloody brilliant for that, too. But
> LMF is an inward-facing design, and not a customer-facing one.

And it's one more obstacle to the casual observer.



-- 
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