On 2022-10-30, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> There has probably not been many new VMS customers the last 10 years.
>
> And a steady attrition of user base.
>

Also known as a managed decline.

> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
>
> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
>
> VMS now needs software!
>

What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?

That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 10/31/2022 9:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-10-30, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
>>
>> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
>> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
>> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
>> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
>>
>> VMS now needs software!
>
> What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
> their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
> is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?
>
> That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
> VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.

I don't think so.

The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
two phase thing:
1) short list good candidates for the task
2) pick one from that short list

No support or no hardware means not making the short list. That
is solved now.

Not having the software also means not making the short list.
And that is an outstanding problem in most cases.

Until VMS will get on the short list then it is not an option.

If VMS makes it to the short list then I am not so worried
about the picking phase.

Sure it would be a problem if the goal was to make it
VMS-Linux 50%-50%. Convincing 50% of the decision makes
to pick VMS would not be easy.

But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
with Linux.

Arne

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/31/2022 9:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2022-10-30, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
> >>
> >> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
> >> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
> >> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
> >> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
> >>
> >> VMS now needs software!
> >
> > What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
> > their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
> > is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?
> >
> > That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
> > VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.
> I don't think so.
>
> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
> two phase thing:
> 1) short list good candidates for the task
> 2) pick one from that short list
>
> No support or no hardware means not making the short list. That
> is solved now.
>
> Not having the software also means not making the short list.
> And that is an outstanding problem in most cases.
>
> Until VMS will get on the short list then it is not an option.
>
> If VMS makes it to the short list then I am not so worried
> about the picking phase.
>
> Sure it would be a problem if the goal was to make it
> VMS-Linux 50%-50%. Convincing 50% of the decision makes
> to pick VMS would not be easy.
>
> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
> with Linux.

Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?

And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation. Until
its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
having any chance.

In article <tjpr13$otu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 10/31/2022 9:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2022-10-30, Arne VajhÞj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
> >>
> >> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
> >> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
> >> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
> >> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
> >>
> >> VMS now needs software!
> >
> > What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
> > their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
> > is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?
> >
> > That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
> > VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
> two phase thing:
> 1) short list good candidates for the task
> 2) pick one from that short list

What about licenses? That's the main problem at the moment.

In article <fb81acb0-3fd2-497d-8dbc-bae32b5847a1n@googlegroups.com>,
David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> writes:

> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
>
> And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
> it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation.
> Until
> its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
> having any chance.

Running main software ported from Linux makes little sense. (On the
other hands, utilities and so on from the open-source world would; most
are compile-and-go on VMS already anyway.) The selling point is what it
always has been: clustering, DLM, HBVS, and so on.

On 2022-11-01, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
>> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
>> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
>> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
>> with Linux.
>
> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
>

Exactly.

Arne is thinking like an engineer with an emotional attachment to VMS.

He needs to start thinking like a manager, who doesn't care what it says
on the box, but has a decision to make about which system to buy.

That manager is going to choose the safest option for them, which is going
to be what everyone else is buying, unless you can persuade them that VMS
is somehow the safer option for them.

From the manager's point of view, going with VMS has a _lot_ of problems,
but so far, I am not seeing what the argument would be for persuading them
to be the one that signs off on buying a VMS system.

What is the argument you would make that is strong enough to persuade them
to go with VMS in spite of the problems involved with doing so ?

Until you can answer that question, you are not going to be selling VMS
into brand new sites.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-11-01, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>
> Running main software ported from Linux makes little sense. (On the
> other hands, utilities and so on from the open-source world would; most
> are compile-and-go on VMS already anyway.) The selling point is what it
> always has been: clustering, DLM, HBVS, and so on.
>

In the 1990s, BeOS was a popular OS in certain quarters with lots of really
genuine innovations for the time.

We all know what happened to BeOS. How do you stop VMS from becoming the
next BeOS ?

Simon.

PS: "compile-and-go" ??? Where can I find the VMS builds of the Linux
office applications (for example) ?

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

In article <tjr9ag$pood$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> > Running main software ported from Linux makes little sense. (On the
> > other hands, utilities and so on from the open-source world would; most
> > are compile-and-go on VMS already anyway.) The selling point is what it
> > always has been: clustering, DLM, HBVS, and so on.
>
> In the 1990s, BeOS was a popular OS in certain quarters with lots of really
> genuine innovations for the time.
>
> We all know what happened to BeOS. How do you stop VMS from becoming the
> next BeOS ?
>
> Simon.
>
> PS: "compile-and-go" ??? Where can I find the VMS builds of the Linux
> office applications (for example) ?

I said "utilities", e.g. tar etc. Why use office? Might as well go
full-on Windows? (I use LaTeX, which to a large extent was developed on
VMS, but is one of the most portable programs in the world.)

Simon Clubley wrote:

> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%, then it is a lot
>> easier. Some decision makers will be willing to look at less common
>> alternatives. Some decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
>> with Linux.
>
> Arne is thinking like an engineer with an emotional attachment to VMS.
> He needs to start thinking like a manager, who doesn't care what it says
> on the box, but has a decision to make about which system to buy.
> That manager is going to choose the safest option for them

And especially if they've had a recent bad experience with Linux, there's no way
they're going to take a chance on VMS at that point.

On 11/1/2022 6:16 AM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/31/2022 9:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-30, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
>>>>
>>>> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
>>>> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
>>>> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
>>>> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
>>>>
>>>> VMS now needs software!
>>>
>>> What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
>>> their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
>>> is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?
>>>
>>> That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
>>> VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
>> two phase thing:
>> 1) short list good candidates for the task
>> 2) pick one from that short list
>>
>> No support or no hardware means not making the short list. That
>> is solved now.
>>
>> Not having the software also means not making the short list.
>> And that is an outstanding problem in most cases.
>>
>> Until VMS will get on the short list then it is not an option.
>>
>> If VMS makes it to the short list then I am not so worried
>> about the picking phase.
>>
>> Sure it would be a problem if the goal was to make it
>> VMS-Linux 50%-50%. Convincing 50% of the decision makes
>> to pick VMS would not be easy.
>>
>> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
>> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
>> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
>> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
>> with Linux.
>
> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
>
> And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
> it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation. Until
> its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
> having any chance.
>

I think you've missed the issue.

As has been said many times, people use applications that they need. They don't
give a damn about computers, OS, language, and such. Perhaps IT people care
about such, but they are not paying the bills (and salaries).

As an example, if you're setting up a nuclear power station, you'd want the best
solutions. Cost (within reason), OS, HW, and such will have little to no
bearing on your choices. The tool to perform your needs is everything.

Now, step down to the IT people, and there can be many prejudices. That can
affect things. But without the proper tools, there are no issues, nothing to
decide, it just won't happen.

Why is VMS still around? Because in some instances, it runs the best tool for
the job.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 11/1/2022 8:29 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <fb81acb0-3fd2-497d-8dbc-bae32b5847a1n@googlegroups.com>,
> David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
>> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
>> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
>> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
>> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
>>
>> And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
>> it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation.
>> Until
>> its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
>> having any chance.
>
> Running main software ported from Linux makes little sense. (On the
> other hands, utilities and so on from the open-source world would; most
> are compile-and-go on VMS already anyway.) The selling point is what it
> always has been: clustering, DLM, HBVS, and so on.
>

Wrong. See my recent post.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 11/1/2022 8:27 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjpr13$otu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
>> On 10/31/2022 9:09 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-30, Arne VajhÞj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> But still I think VMS future looks better now than in the past.
>>>>
>>>> * there is a company dedicated to VMS (VSI)
>>>> * VMS runs on on standard hardware (x86-64) with a future
>>>> * VMS can run in common enterprise environments like
>>>> VMWare ESXI and AWS/Azure/GCP
>>>>
>>>> VMS now needs software!
>>>
>>> What would it take for a manager in a new-to-VMS company to risk
>>> their pension and salary by buying a VMS solution instead of what
>>> is currently an industry-standard solution based on Linux or Windows ?
>>>
>>> That's the _real_ problem you need to solve. Adding new software to
>>> VMS means nothing until you solve that problem.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
>> two phase thing:
>> 1) short list good candidates for the task
>> 2) pick one from that short list
>
> What about licenses? That's the main problem at the moment.
>

No, it is not.

The best tool for the job is the overriding criteria.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 11/1/2022 10:55 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%, then it is a lot
>>> easier. Some decision makers will be willing to look at less common
>>> alternatives. Some decision makers will have had a recent bad
>>> experience with Linux.
>>
>> Arne is thinking like an engineer with an emotional attachment to VMS.
>> He needs to start thinking like a manager, who doesn't care what it says
>> on the box, but has a decision to make about which system to buy.
>> That manager is going to choose the safest option for them
>
> And especially if they've had a recent bad experience with Linux,
> there's no way they're going to take a chance on VMS at that point.

If you have a recent bad experience with Linux, then
there are 3 possible actions to take for next project:
- hope (or prepare for) it will go better next time
- switch to another Linux distro/vendor
- switch to something not Linux

Some will go each route.

The third route may very well get the smallest
portion of users, but it will still be some users.

And what are the options? Windows Server, AIX, FreeBSD
and VMS? Some would pick VMS!

Not enough to become an industry trend, but maybe
enough to be good for VSI financials.

Arne

On 11/1/2022 10:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-11-01, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
>>> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
>>> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
>>> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
>>> with Linux.
>>
>> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
>> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
>> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
>> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
>> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Arne is thinking like an engineer with an emotional attachment to VMS.
>
> He needs to start thinking like a manager, who doesn't care what it says
> on the box, but has a decision to make about which system to buy.
>
> That manager is going to choose the safest option for them, which is going
> to be what everyone else is buying, unless you can persuade them that VMS
> is somehow the safer option for them.
>
> From the manager's point of view, going with VMS has a _lot_ of problems,
> but so far, I am not seeing what the argument would be for persuading them
> to be the one that signs off on buying a VMS system.
>
> What is the argument you would make that is strong enough to persuade them
> to go with VMS in spite of the problems involved with doing so ?
>
> Until you can answer that question, you are not going to be selling VMS
> into brand new sites.

No - I am thinking like someone that does not get his
understanding of IT decision making from reading Dilbert.

Different IT decision makers has different priorities
and different approaches.

There will be a huge chunk of them that want to run
what everybody else is running aka Linux. They will
never go with VMS.

There will be a huge chunk that want a free offering
usually one of the gratis Linux distros. They will
never go with VMS.

But there will be some that are open to alternatives.

Not enough if ones goal is to take over the OS world.

But probably more than enough to make VSI thrive.

The trick is in the numbers. If we say that the industry
setup 5 million new servers every year, then VSI only
need a tiny slice to be successful.

Arne

On 11/1/2022 6:16 AM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Until VMS will get on the short list then it is not an option.
>>
>> If VMS makes it to the short list then I am not so worried
>> about the picking phase.
>>
>> Sure it would be a problem if the goal was to make it
>> VMS-Linux 50%-50%. Convincing 50% of the decision makes
>> to pick VMS would not be easy.
>>
>> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
>> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
>> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
>> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
>> with Linux.
>
> Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
> choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
> costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
> All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
> is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?

If gratis is the goal, then VMS is not the answer.

But there are still companies willing to pay.

> And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
> it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation. Until
> its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
> having any chance.

I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
problems?

Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.

Arne

On 11/1/2022 6:16 AM, David Goodwin wrote:
> And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
> it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation.

VSI got an ISV program so licenses should not be a problem. And if
open source software a community license should work as well.

But there are other problems.

If it is commercial software then the market is small. Obviously
a concern, but difficult for VSI to tackle: too few users due to
lack of commercial software - lack of commercial software due to
too few users.

But there is a huge tooling, library and platform software
gap. Even if someone wanted to support their software on VMS,
then currently it will often be impossible due to something
missing. VSI can do something about that.

Arne

On 11/1/2022 8:27 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjpr13$otu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
>> two phase thing:
>> 1) short list good candidates for the task
>> 2) pick one from that short list
>
> What about licenses? That's the main problem at the moment.

VSI sell commercial licenses. They got an ISV program. They
got the community license.

There is an outstanding problem with the expiring licenses
that in some worst case scenarios could mean systems
stopping with short notice.

But potential customers should talk to VSI about that.
Businesses are usually listening when it is about revenue.

Arne

In article <tjrs45$erh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
> problems?
>
> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.

No, the issue is that most people can't get a non-expiring license.
CURRENT customers are not moving to x86 because of that; getting new
ones will be even more difficult.

In article <tjrsnf$nbs$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 11/1/2022 8:27 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article <tjpr13$otu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> > <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >> The decision process will either explicit or implicit be a
> >> two phase thing:
> >> 1) short list good candidates for the task
> >> 2) pick one from that short list
> >
> > What about licenses? That's the main problem at the moment.
>
> VSI sell commercial licenses. They got an ISV program. They
> got the community license.
>
> There is an outstanding problem with the expiring licenses
> that in some worst case scenarios could mean systems
> stopping with short notice.

That seems to be the biggest problem for many (potential) customers.

> But potential customers should talk to VSI about that.
> Businesses are usually listening when it is about revenue.

Usually. Some have talked and not got a satisfactory answer.

On 11/1/2022 3:48 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjrs45$erh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
>> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
>> problems?
>>
>> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
>> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.
>
> No, the issue is that most people can't get a non-expiring license.
> CURRENT customers are not moving to x86 because of that; getting new
> ones will be even more difficult.

How many users representing how many licenses representing how
many dollars?

Arne

On 11/1/2022 3:49 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjrsnf$nbs$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> There is an outstanding problem with the expiring licenses
>> that in some worst case scenarios could mean systems
>> stopping with short notice.
>
> That seems to be the biggest problem for many (potential) customers.

Based on?

comp.os.vms is not exactly a CIO forum.

My take is that it is more a problem for existing customers than
for the new customers. Existing VMS customers think decades. A lot
of new stuff is HW and OS end up in the dumpster after 5 years
(applications may still live decades).

>> But potential customers should talk to VSI about that.
>> Businesses are usually listening when it is about revenue.
>
> Usually. Some have talked and not got a satisfactory answer.

The french user group talked to VSI and did not convince VSI.

But if more do so then maybe ...

Arne

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 8:30:18 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 6:16 AM, David Goodwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> Until VMS will get on the short list then it is not an option.
> >>
> >> If VMS makes it to the short list then I am not so worried
> >> about the picking phase.
> >>
> >> Sure it would be a problem if the goal was to make it
> >> VMS-Linux 50%-50%. Convincing 50% of the decision makes
> >> to pick VMS would not be easy.
> >>
> >> But if the goal is the more realistic VMS-Linux 1%-99%,
> >> then it is a lot easier. Some decision makers will be
> >> willing to look at less common alternatives. Some
> >> decision makers will have had a recent bad experience
> >> with Linux.
> >
> > Even if the software was available on OpenVMS, why would you
> > choose it over Linux? Why subject your business to the high licensing
> > costs, yearly license renewals, and difficulty of finding skilled staff?
> > All to run software that was probably ported from Linux anyway? What
> > is the actual selling point of OpenVMS to potential customers?
> If gratis is the goal, then VMS is not the answer.
>
> But there are still companies willing to pay.
> > And probably the reason why there is no software for OpenVMS is that
> > it's too obscure, almost certainly because of it's licensing situation. Until
> > its cheap and easy to license like its competitors, I don't really see it
> > having any chance.
> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
> problems?
>
> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.

I don't have to contact Microsoft to buy windows licenses - I can do it all
online with my credit card. I don't even *have* to buy a linux license - I
can just download the ISO. Even something as obscure and niche as OS/2
I can just buy online from the Arca Noae online store. The prices are all
right there in the open.

What does OpenVMS cost? I really have no idea - I'd have to email
someone. And is the cost going to be the same as what everyone else
is paying or am I going to be charged extra because I'm not a big
customer? I'll likely never know.

OpenVMS is competing with Linux which is pretty much the default
choice for everyone who isn't so heavily invested in Microsoft stuff
they can't move, has huge network effects working in its favor, already
runs all the stuff you want and almost certainly runs it better than any
other platform, and has a fully functional 100% free tier that allows
commercial use if you're on a tight budget.

Given the odds are so heavily stacked against OpenVMS, why is VSI
putting up roadblocks?

In article <tjrtfc$10pb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 11/1/2022 3:48 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article <tjrs45$erh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> > <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
> >> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
> >> problems?
> >>
> >> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
> >> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.
> >
> > No, the issue is that most people can't get a non-expiring license.
> > CURRENT customers are not moving to x86 because of that; getting new
> > ones will be even more difficult.
>
> How many users representing how many licenses representing how
> many dollars?

I don't know. Do you?

On 11/1/2022 4:16 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjrtfc$10pb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 11/1/2022 3:48 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <tjrs45$erh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
>>>> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
>>>> problems?
>>>>
>>>> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
>>>> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.
>>>
>>> No, the issue is that most people can't get a non-expiring license.
>>> CURRENT customers are not moving to x86 because of that; getting new
>>> ones will be even more difficult.
>>
>> How many users representing how many licenses representing how
>> many dollars?
>
> I don't know. Do you?

No.

But I am not the one claiming that it is a huge problem.

Arne

On 11/1/2022 3:48 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tjrs45$erh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
>> I am not aware of buying VMS licenses should not be easy. You
>> contact VSI, you pay and you get your license. Anyone have had
>> problems?
>>
>> Some may think the price is too high. But heck I also think that
>> Ferrari's are too expensive as I can't afford one, but that is life.
>
> No, the issue is that most people can't get a non-expiring license.
> CURRENT customers are not moving to x86 because of that; getting new
> ones will be even more difficult.
>

Customers aren't moving to x86, yet, because there are no native compilers.
Most will not choose cross compilers. At least that is my opinion.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486