[Info-vax] VMS survivability

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 2/18/2023 4:15 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 2/18/2023 3:20 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <memo.20230218104100.11588B at jgd.cix.co.uk>,
>> John Dallman <jgd at cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <tsq2vo$3utev$1 at dont-email.me>, jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com
>>> (Jan-Erik Söderholm) wrote:
>>>
>>>> English version of the meeting notes:
>>>
>>> The license news is good. [snip]
>>
>> Meh.
>>
>> I'll be blunt: the only reasonable path for VMS to survive
>> is to open source it under an OSI-approved license.  VSI
>> should dedicated itself to finishing the x86_64 port and
>> doing the necessary legal work to make that happen, and
>> then pivot to consulting and services (honestly: this is
>> what DEC should have done, and it's largely what IBM did
>> in order to survive in the 00's).
>>
>> Trying to push VMS as a _product_ at any price point will
>> undoubtedly lead to an ever-dwindling user base and an
>> eventual fade into obscure irrelevancy.
> 
> What benefits do you imagine for VSI, for customers, if VSI were to do 
> what you suggest.  Talking about the "open source" issue.  That ignores 
> the fact that they do not have the right to do so, at least with what 
> they got from HP.  I've read that what VSI produces is theirs, and they 
> could do whatever they want with it.  We're pretty sure that any of the 
> Macro-32 and Bliss code isn't from VSI. But my primary question, what 
> benefits do you see of "open source"?

The most successful OS (Linux) is open source, so
the idea that open sourcing is good is pretty
easy to get.

But the problem is that open sourcing VMS would
not bring it on the same path as Linux. The context
is too different.

Arne