[Info-vax] Java on VMS, was: Re: So is there still a hobbyist program or not

[Dave Froble]

On 7/20/2019 7:44 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/20/2019 7:36 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/20/19 6:50 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2019 6:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> I think it is rare that applications get totally rewritten often. Cost
>>>>> prevents that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drivers for rewrites are usually one or a combination off:
>>>>> 1) the platform is burning aka no support from vendor and
>>>>>     difficult to find people with skills
>>>>> 2) changes in general IT strategy where the platform is
>>>>>     no longer an option because it will not run in the new
>>>>>     environment
>>>>> 3) there is a business need for very significant enhancements
>>>>>     that just are not practically possible with current
>>>>>     platform
>>>>> 4) there is a significant cost saving by changing platform
>>>>
>>>> The aforementioned Lubri-Moly issue is a case of #4, sort of.  The
>>>> idea was
>>>> that by moving from proprietary applications designed specifically
>>>> for that
>>>> business to commercial general-purpose business applications that
>>>> there would
>>>> be cost savings in software maintenance, and that the software would
>>>> in the
>>>> end be more flexible.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the case, as anyone who has ever seen an SAP disaster
>>>> can attest.
>>>
>>> There is typical not anything wrong with the logic when the project
>>> starts.
>>>
>>> A standard application is much lower cost to maintain than a custom
>>> application.
>>
>> I would disagree with that. The Custom Application was, in most
>> cases, written to specifically match a business paradigm.  The
>> typical canned package will require the business model to be
>> modified to match the software.
>
> That is only a real problem if ones way of conducting business
> is truly unique.

If a business has an advantage from their business model, and does 
better than their competitors, (and yes, this does happen), give up the 
advantage and most likely lose the business.  (This also happens.)

> But in like 98% of cases the business is not really that different
> from what similar companies around the world does for that particular
> task.

Totally false.  Businesses strive for a competitive advantage.

> If is often perceived as a problem though.
>
> And if management listens then the company will be spending a lot
> of money on IT.

Or, will be spending money to retain their business advantage(s).  It's 
when a bean counter talks them out of it that they lose the business.

>>                                 That's like changing the design
>> of your house to use nothing but nails because the builder doesn't
>> have anything but hammers.
>
> No. It is like asking the builder for a house using a base model the
> builder has used previously instead of asking an architect and
> engineer to design a fully custom house.
>
> It saves money.

Not if you don't get a house you're happy with.

Perhaps someone would want a weight room, or a theater room, or 
whatever.  Not everyone would be happy with lowest common denominator.


-- 
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