[Info-vax] VSI OpenVMS Community License

[Chris Townley]

On 29/03/2024 01:54, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 8:31 PM, bill wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate 
>>>>>> that there
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>>
>>>>> One would think!
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden?  Were they seeing any
>>>>> return on it?  My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>>
>>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in 
>>>> VMS is a
>>>> good thing for VMS.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>>> things must be tempered by their costs.  Here, I suspect VSI was
>>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>>> path would have been superior.
>>
>> What cost are we talking about here?  If you mean the cost of
>> taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
>> why that could not have been fully automated.  It's not rocket
>> science (anymore) people.
>>
>>
>> bill
>>
> 
> I tend to try to look beyond what is said ...
> 
> It may not be technical at all.  What if someone in VSI, or it's parent, 
> asked, why are we doing this?  It isn't what is our business plan.
> 
> Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it.  
> Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
> 
> I don't know anything.  Just speculation.  But in c.o.v I have not 
> noticed much being said by VSI people.  Might not be healthy speaking 
> out against those at the top.
> 
> Nor am I buying the newbie issue.  Just point them at c.o.v and they 
> would get more advice than they wanted.
> 

I believe the recent batch of VMS newbies helped the demise.

Too many couldn't be bothered to even look at he docs/release notes. One 
chap couldn't be bothered to read the TCP/IP docs - and it showed in the 
pleading thread.

He then complained about the first 2.2-2 patch - the release notes 
clearly stated to install the PCSI patch first - as did his transcript 
from his attempt to install.

He then just grumbled on the forum - even after a few good clear 
responses from VSI people.

No wonder they thought is it worth it?

-- 
Chris