[Info-vax] VSI strategy for OpenVMS

[David Turner]

I truly believe that the military and state intelligence services are 
the ONLY reason that OpenVMS has survived.
We all know they are huge users of OpenVMS, and the acquisition of 
OpenVMS by VSI has guaranteed them some pretty hefty
service and licensing sales.
The US GOV has very very deep pockets, and even if sole-sourced. As long 
as it is maintained they will continue to use it.
We are talking a cash herd of cows

DT


On 9/13/2021 12:51 PM, calliet gérard wrote:
> Le 12/09/2021 à 13:18, John Dallman a écrit :
>> The current "open source on OpenVMS" caused me to wonder how VSI's
>> strategic plan for OpenVMS and its applications works. Some bits are
>> fairly easy to deduce, but others are far less clear.
>>
>> The OpenVMS customer base has been slowly shrinking for quite a while.
>> Since VSI lives on support contract income, this is a serious problem.
>> Reasons for organisations to carry on using the OS include:
>>
>> * High reliability.
>> * OS-level clustering, rather than application-level clustering.
>> * Other specific features of OpenVMS.
>> * Lack of ability to migrate to another OS at reasonable cost.
>> * Customer staff who prefer it, and have the ability to block changes.
>>
>> None of those reasons can overcome a prolonged lack of hardware that can
>> run OpenVMS, so VSI are doing the right thing by making it possible to
>> run the OS on commodity hardware, and providing the programming 
>> languages
>> and other tools needed to port a lot of customers' software to x86.
>> Exactly which languages and tools should get priority depends on what
>> will get VSI the most income, and they know far more than us about what
>> their customers are using.
>>
>> But the reasons for carrying on using OpenVMS don't obviously indicate a
>> particular field or market segment of computing where OpenVMS usage is
>> concentrated. It seems likely that the existing customers are a somewhat
>> random selection of the organisations that took up VMS in the 1970s
>> through 1990s. That creates a problem.
>>
>> DEC was a large organisation, capable of having expert teams in most
>> fields of computing. VSI probably can't manage that. Their efforts to
>> grow the customer base will presumably have to be focused on one or two
>> areas. There seems to be a potential problem after customers start
>> transitioning to x86: demand for software for many different fields, 
>> from
>> a wide variety of customers.
>>
>> Porting open source is one answer, but there's an awful lot of it out
>> there, making for a huge task, and doing it is at least as 
>> complicated as
>> porting Linux software to Windows. That suggests that a Linux
>> compatibility layer/library might be a good idea, but there have been
>> several past attempts at that, and none seem to have got established.
>>
>> It's not obvious to me what VSI should concentrate on once OpenVMS is
>> working on x86 and customer transitions have become routine. It is clear
>> that should be some kind(s) of server work, but not which ones.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> John
>>
> I have been waiting for such a thread for years. A VMS user who dares 
> open questions about the VMS supplier strategy.
>
> I'm not kidding. The VMS ecosystem culture is not about collaboration 
> between the suppliers and the users to determine their common future.
>
> I have been thinking about differences of paradigms between IBM, 
> Free-World and VMS. In the Free-World everyone is the leader. In IBM 
> world the board is the leader, and the customer is the king. In VMS 
> world the board is the leader, and he does'nt need any advice from 
> anyone, because he knows what is good :)
>
> What makes me happy is the time did change somethings. Decades of 
> utilisation of the very-well-thought Digital products created 
> wery-well-formed users. And perhaps they can now help the board.
>
> My opinion is that a successfull strategy has to be founded - also - 
> on an accute analysis of the identity of the ecosystem.
>
> The first question could be: why did VMS survive? I remember 
> discussion here in 2013. Everyone was thinking VMS will die. And it 
> was a very well founded opinion. VMS could have die like sun, for 
> example: old things die, new things take their place... I'm not sure 
> we have totally understood why VMS escaped the common rule. And it 
> seems we have to understand that to continue escaping the common rule.
>
> There are two pieces of answer on that. First we have to understand 
> what have been the major things which explain the success of VMS in 
> the beginning. And second, understand how theses specific qualities 
> match our time needs and trends.
>
> My hypothesis is twofold. The bet for mini-computer - against the main 
> frame, and more ingenieered than the unix constant rewriting - was 
> about locality and for mastery. VMS survived because it offers at the 
> place where it is needed a way of mastering the computer usage.
>
> - A parenthesis for the new VMS ceo, who had been leader in a company 
> helping main frame users : VMS ecosystem is not at all the same world. 
> IBM & co did succeeded with a strong value for service. VMS users are 
> more individual masters, who are a little bit suspicious about the 
> marvelous offers of service -
>
> Locality and mastering, which involves temporal stability, are the new 
> major needs of the future decades. It is yet a little bit clandestine, 
> because the huge investments are all about miracoulous service. 
> However the x milions invested on Vms are just a tip compared to the 
> billions invested to serve us, it is not the same world. And it is 
> possible that VMS is beginning to build something more humbly usefull, 
> which would resist even to the storms.
>
> To be able to cope with the long cycles, maturing tools because of 
> real needs, being able to analyze the successes and the failures, 
> thinking structurally, avoiding waste, thinking about reusability... 
> all that is the major (future) trend of our time. It is that trend 
> which has been met with the revival of VMS, and which is at least one 
> of the conditions of the revival.
>
> So I think VSI strategy will be a success if VSI knows about that, and 
> conforms with the actual potential of the ecosystem. And also if the 
> users themselves analyze why they are successfull with VMS, and dare 
> express their advice.
>
> I have to say until today the VMS ecosystem strategy is not at all on 
> such a way.
>
> You are talking about what will be the future with the transition to 
> x86 done. I dare say let's work for this transition to be a success, 
> because it is a huge challenge, and perhaps don't think only in terms 
> of transition, but in terms of respect of the passage of time. And 
> even we could emit critics, if we think they can help... but it is 
> another thread.
>
> Gérard Calliet
>
>
>
>
>