[Info-vax] Real live example...

[David Goodwin]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 9:06:53 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 8:42 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: 
> > On 2023-02-20, Arne Vajhøj <ar... at vajhoej.dk> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> They are almost there with the first step of getting 
> >> VMS production ready for running on x86-64. That will 
> >> help quite a bit for VMS that it can run in the same 
> >> infrastructure as anything else - VMWare on-prem or 
> >> VM's in IaaS cloud or whatever the IT department is 
> >> standardizing on. 
> >> 
> >> Next step should be the compilers/libraries/tools/platform-software. 
> >> 
> >> Will it be easy? No! 
> > 
> > If that's what you think is required, then it most certainly isn't and 
> > what VSI should _really_ be doing they show no evidence of doing. 
> > 
> > Make no mistake, the above is essential and must be done as soon as 
> > possible, but it's not the most important thing VSI should be doing. 
> > 
> > The most important thing that VSI should be doing is convincing the people 
> > that sign the cheques that staying with VMS is the safest option for them 
> > instead of those people paying for a migration project.
> It is obvious that VSI need to push VMS. 
> 
> But just pushing BS does not work out long term. 
> 
> Long term something of substance is needed. 
> 
> Staying on VMS will not be considered the safest option just because 
> VSI says so. 
> 
> Staying on VMS may be considered the safest option if VMS is 
> seen as having a future. 
> 
> VMS will be seen as having a future if it runs on standard 
> infrastructure, has the the compilers/libraries/tools/platform-software 
> that is needed and has the applications needed.

Even then I wouldn't consider that enough. Plenty of other operating systems
backed by much larger companies than VSI met all those requirements and
yet no longer exist.

The only guarantee of a future is for the source to be made available under
a worthwhile license. Without the source there are no long-term guarantees.