[Info-vax] VAX VMS going forward

[Michael Moroney]

Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:

>On 7/21/2020 5:26 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <rf7lt9$6ti$1 at dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>> <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Would VSI allow a VSI sponsored VAX/VMS Version (whatever), or do they
>>> have some reason they do not want there to be a new VAX/VMS version?
>>>
>>> Assume VSI hired Bob for $1 (donated by Dave) to build a new VSI version
>>> of VAX/VMS, which would not cost them anything, no time (other than to
>>> say Ok), and they would never be bothered by it's existence.
>>>
>>> Assume some entity (call if DECUS, if possible) made the distribution
>>> available, along with the required PAKs.
>>>
>>> So, Ok, would Bob be willing and able to produce the new version?  Would
>>> someone provide him with the resources to do so?  Would someone host the
>>> distribution and PAKs and whatever else?
>>
>> Why should VSI be involved at all?  If I understand things correctly,
>> HPE could take that dollar.  VSI isn't in the VAX picture at all.
>>

>You haven't been reading, or comprehending a damn thing.

>HPe is out of the picture as far as VMs is concerned.  By their own choice.

>VSI is the entity that can produce new versions, and then distribute and 
>allow use of said new versions.

>Any usage of VAX/VMS therefore must come from VSI.

>VSI does not want to spend one penny on VAX.
>VSI does not want to spend one minute on VAX.

>Which part of the above do you not understand?

In addition:

HPE still owns VAX/VMS.  Unlike the Alpha/Itanium version, VSI did NOT get any
rights to VAX/VMS.  Like it or not, HPE still owns VAX/VMS outright, for them
to ignore.  And as pointed out, VSI has no interest in VAX/VMS.