[Info-vax] Ask the Wizard archives?

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Simon Clubley
> via Info-vax
> Sent: May 23, 2019 2:17 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Ask the Wizard archives?
> 
> On 2019-05-23, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've said in the past, getting VMS in front of as many people as
> > possible is in VSI's best interest, and insuring they easily can get
> > information is pretty much the same thing.
> >
> 
> Agreed. I strongly suspect RHEL is more heavily used today exactly because
> there is a free version (CentOS) that people can try out in production use
on
> non-critical systems.
> 
> Simon.
> 

Reason RHEL has eaten OpenVMS, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX lunch is because of the
RHEL business model. 

High up front licenses are considered CAPEX (capital expenses) in Cust
budgets which requires senior Cust exec signoff's and is very visible and
painful to get through.

Support / subscription costs are considered OPEX (operations expense) which
no one sees or cares about except the Cust Operations Director.

In addition, since its only the Operations Director who signs off, and
he/she cares about standards and support, most of the renewals are for the
enterprise level of RH. Win-win for both Red Hat and Operations Director.

How many times have readers here heard about how senior Execs were surprised
when they actually found out how much Linux was actually running in their
company?

Adopting a new vastly simplified license model based on subscription levels
is definitely the way to go for VSI. Ideally not anything related to
socket/core pricing as this complexity absolutely drives Customers crazy.
Just go through some of the Windows or Oracle support forums and see if
Customers are impressed with these core licensing models.


Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com