[Info-vax] VMS Software: New US Mailing Address

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 10/12/22 10:03, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 5:03 AM, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
>> on 11/10/2022, Arne Vajhøj supposed :
>>> On 10/11/2022 11:27 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2022 9:00 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-10-11, Marc Van Dyck <marc.gr.vandyck at invalid.skynet.be> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The lack of attention to third party software editors is in my 
>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>> even worse than that.
>>>>> If so, I am surprised at that. I thought VSI were in communication 
>>>>> with
>>>>> the various third-party software developers. Are you saying that is 
>>>>> not
>>>>> happening ?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what Marc is looking for.  I've gotten ISV stuff from VSI.  No
>>>> problem.  However if Marc is looking for VSI to get involved in any 
>>>> way with
>>>> marketing and sales of 3rd party software, I'm thinking VSI is fully 
>>>> tasked
>>>> with their own issues.  Can't do everything.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> VSI got a good ISV program.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to doubt that VSI is working with major
>>> third party software vendors.
>>>
>>> Oracle DB (Oracle Classic) client kit was obviously a
>>> disappointment, but VSI can't force Oracle to do anything.
>>>
>>> VSI does not have resources to offer engineering
>>> support to the smaller third party software vendors.
>>>
>>> Given the industry landscape and VSI's size, then I think
>>> they are doing what they can.
>>>
>>> Arne
>>
>> Most of the software packages that we are using today won't be ported
>> to X86. That includes, but is not limited to, Oracle Classic client,
>> the old Polycenter products (now owned by Broadcom), the $Universe
>> multi-platform scheduler, Axway Transfer CFT, etc. We're going to have
>> to find replacements for all that, and review all our home grown apps
>> to use them. So for us, no the VSI ISV program is not particularly good.
>> And I do not see any reason why we should consider ourselves as an
>> exception.
>>
> 
> It would seem to me that the current owners of the mentioned software 
> would be responsible for porting their software, not VSI.

I don't see where they have any responsibility to port it one way or the
other.  Of course, neither does VSI.

> 
> Have you asked these entities to provide their software on x86 VMS?  
> Selling their products and services is what they are about, isn't it?  
> If not, then I for one do not understand what they consider their 
> business.  If they would desire to port their software, the ISV program 
> would provide them with the capability.

And if they see the cost as far too much more than the expected ROI?

> 
> If the owners of the mentioned software products decline to port them to 
> x86 VMS, then that perhaps is business opportunities for other vendors.
> 
> I fail to understand why you might consider this a problem with the VSI 
> ISV program.
> 

Yeah, I see that, too.  But I also see it as yet another nail in
the VMS coffin as more and more people decide moving forward is
not really worth their effort.

Question Dave.  If VSI had decided not to port or continue support
for VMS BASIC would you have ported to another language or OS in
order to keep your customers running?  Would you see taking on such
a task as your responsibility?

bill