[Info-vax] VSI licencing policy (again), was: Re: VSI has a new CEO

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <see0k9$km$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: 

> >> Unfortunately, VSI do not seem to show any interest in addressing this.
> >>
> >> I wonder how much business it has cost them and how much it's going to
> >> cost them simply because a customer cannot allow this situation to occur.
> >>
> >> A business may love VMS and want to stay with it, but they are not
> >> going to allow the collapse of a vendor to be the collapse of their
> >> own business, even if that means moving away from VMS.
> >
> > On this we agree 100%.
> 
> Even when people disagree with me on the other things I say, everyone
> still appears to agree with me on this.

Right.  If Simon and I both agree, then it must be right!  :-)

> Why can't VSI see just how strongly customers feel about this and why
> are they not doing anything to address this showstopping problem for
> keeping many people as VSI customers ?
> 
> Do VSI simply not understand the sheer strength of customer feeling
> about this ?
> 
> If you have your application source code, there are now solutions for
> porting your VMS applications, including its VMS-specific code, over
> to another operating system such as Linux.
> 
> How many people are now exploring this option as a direct result of
> VSI's new time-limited licences policy ?

Maybe people should write to VSI, but also publicly state, that they 
would stick with VMS if they could get a non-expiring license (even if 
it costs more, as long as the additional cost is not absurd), but if not 
then they will move off of VMS and never become a VSI customer or, if 
they are, will stop being one as soon as they can port stuff.