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

[Dave Froble]

On 10/12/2022 12:22 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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?

That would raise several questions.  But to first answer your question, who else 
would or could port the apps to another environment?  It would be the software 
owner's responsibility.

As to whether is would be advisable to port to another language and environment, 
it would depend on the economics of the question.  Would the customers be 
willing to finance the work?  Would the vendor be able to perform the work?  I 
may have mentioned before, Erik: 80, Dave: 76, Bill: 72, ...

However the last bit is rather specific, and the general question isn't.  It is 
a needs and economic issue.  Can something else do the job?  Does the job need 
to be done?

You like to refer to nails and coffins.  VSI is providing the means to continue 
to use VMS.  That's all they can do.  What others do is their own business, and 
could affect the viability of VSI.

I have to wonder if the general entitlement mentality that seems to be so 
widespread isn't happening with such issues as raised by the OP.  Back in the 
day, if one needed something, one found or produced it.  When a software vendor 
noticed a business opportunity they sought to pursue that opportunity.  Seems 
now some want everything handed to them.  Seems some software vendors want 
customers to use what they offer, not to produce what the customer asks for.


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486