[Info-vax] Licenses on VAX/VMS 4.0/4.1 source code listing scans

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>>>
>>> Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
>>> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
>>> Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
>>> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
>>> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
>>> of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.
>>
>> The risk seems pretty low to me.
> 
> I agree that the risk today, based on the information publicly
> available,  seems quite low.
> 
>> The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
>> hardware available for many years to come.
> 
> But it is not going to run (or, at least, not be supported) on
> that cheap hardware.  I doubt Acer is one of their targets.

Low end x86-64 servers are pretty cheap.

You run maybe 10 VM's on a 5000 dollars physical server. I consider
that very cheap compared to previous.

You can run in public cloud for like 10 cent per hour.

Heck - you can run in VM on a cheap Acer laptop. Not
for production but ...

>> VSI seems to adjust ambition level to what they can pay for.
>> Which may be frustrating in the perspective of getting a lot
>> of new features very quickly, but is very good from a
>> financial risk perspective. Less revenue will not result
>> in bankruptcy but just result in slower pace of rollout of
>> new features.
> 
> But it may result in less customers.  They are already fighting
> an uphill battle selling something that the industry tells people
> is a dead end.

The existing customers require relative little new features.

New customers will require a lot of new features.

A delay in new features is not likely to cause many existing customers
to drop VMS, but it will certainly delay getting new customers.

>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>> customers would always have N years left on their
>> licenses.
> 
> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
> interesting paradox.

Depends on the model.

The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
extend for next year.

Arne