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

[Arne Vajhøj]

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.
> 
> 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.

What you describe is definitely not good.

Software is necessary for an OS.

If software does not get ported from VMS Alpha and VMS I64 to
VMS x86-64, then VSI has a problem.

But the question is *why* are they not porting.

Is it cost and service provided of VSI ISV program? (that seems very
unlikely to me)

Is it lack of awareness of VMS x86-64 or lack of faith in the
future of VMS? VSI could do something about that.

Is it too few VMS customers to pay for the port? Very little
to do about that short term.

Is it corporate decisions to drop anything that is not Linux
or Windows? Probably also very little to do about that - the
world is as the world is.

Arne

PS: New ISV's considering to port to VMS (let us be optimizstic!) have
     a few additional concerns like supported language versions and
     libraries available, but those should not impact those
     already on VMS.