[Info-vax] Comment on the future of OpenVMS

[FredK]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> wrote in message 
news:00e04ba1$0$23390$c3e8da3 at news.astraweb.com...
> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>
>> Now, since VMS development hasn't been outsourced, this is of no
>> particual relevance. Now, if the VMS development realy had been
>> outsourced, I'd been a bit more concerned.
>
> You are correct in stating that HP has not outsourced to a different
> outside firm. But internally, VMS was outsourced.
>
>
> I say this because it appears that VMS development was shifted to a
> dfferent branch in the corporate hiearchy. I never did find out the
> complete line of reporting between Livermore and Sujatha. But it does
> not go through Finck who was in charge of business critical systems.
>
> It is also not clear who makes decisions for VMS. Does BCS decide what
> features are needed, and then "hires" the Indian outfit to implement and
> negotiate the budgets for it ?  If so, then this is very much like
> outsourcing.
>
> If the whole decision process for VMS was shifted to the indian outfit,
> them VMS would no longer be part of BCS. If there is a sale of VMS
> licence, to whom are the revenues attributes ? BCS ? Or the indian outfit 
> ?
>
> Is BCS now just hardware with all software/OS having been shifted to a
> different hiearchy within HP ?

I suggest that you stop trying to read tea leaves.  Various country laws, 
corporate tax laws, and a variety of reasons cause things like seperate 
corporate entities.  This is not new.  VMS has not been shifted to some 
seperate branch of the corporate heirarchy regardless of what type of org 
chart you think you have pieced together.  Nor are organizational structures 
carved in stone - they are fluid.  These things seldom effect the actual 
engineering and strategy of any group.  Just what VP reports to what VP.