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

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/11/21 9:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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.

OK.  I read that as "running on cheap hardware" not "running in
VM's on cheap hardware".

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

My opinion of public cloud should be well known here by now.

> 
> 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.

That is one of the potential problems with some of the suggested
long term licensing proposals.

> 
> New customers will require a lot of new features.

True, and that is also a serious problem.

> 
> 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.

Don't know about in other countries, but that would pretty much
eliminate the US Government as a potential customer.  Also not
really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.

bill