[Info-vax] Any stronger versions of the LMF planned ?, was: Re: LMF Licence Generator Code

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 8/7/2021 10:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>>> - it is out of support
>>>
>>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>>> abandon it in its entirety.
>>
>> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.
> 
> Anything can be replaced.  The required effort may or may not be excessive.

The effort of creating a CPU replacement or an OS replacement
or a database replacement will be excessive for sure.

>> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
>> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
>> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.
> 
> Vs the cost of doing a replacement?

The logic goes like:
- if it cost 1 M$ to replace A
- if it cost 2 M$ to migrate
- then just looking at A make migration a bad  plan
- but if B, C, D and E are all going to go out of support within
   the next 3 years and they will also cost 1 M$ a piece to replace
   the the migration business case looks much better

>>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>>
>>> That is a fixable problem.
>>>
>>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>>
>> That is a good proposal.
>>
>> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
>> such a bill get approved, that funding will continue in the future
>> and that students will be interested?
> 
> Students are interested in getting jobs.
> 
> Now, the damn educators who think they know everything, maybe they 
> should not have jobs.

Business has to act according to how the world is not how
the world should be.

>>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>>
>>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>>> subjective.  A little research will show how the majority of
>>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>>
>> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>>
>> Migration projects are no exception.
> 
> And if it ain't broke, why fix it?

If you have commitments from vendors that the HW and SW
will be supported for 10+ years and you get hundreds
of qualified applicants when you put up a job ad and
the users are happy with the cost and time to integrate with
other solutions, then there is no reason to fix anything.

But ...

Arne