On 2021-08-07, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
> using pakgen.c. I doubt any legitimate business would as the legal
> implications (even without VSI being involved) as a serious concern.
> You don't think the auditors or legal department would be looking at
> this?
>

Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
the same licence key on different PCs ? In other words, how many people
had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?

Simon.

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

On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>
> But they haven't been available for some months for VAX, and there will
> be no more.
>

The final hobbyist VAX licences (and HPE Alpha VMS licences) expire
at the end of this year. The final licences were given an extra year
to run.

Simon.

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

On 8/7/2021 7:20 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
>> of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
>> company was a bit disorganised.
>
> There is a major change between then and now.
>
> Back in those days hardware cost a _lot_ of money. If you had enough
> money to buy the hardware, you also had enough money to buy the
> software.
>
> These days hardware is cheap compared to the cost of the software.
> There is a much stronger motivation for some people to try and
> break the licencing so they can run the expensive software on
> cheap hardware.
>
> The old LMF is no longer suitable for purpose in this new world
> with its different dynamics and I would be absolutely amazed
> if VSI were not looking at making the licencing software much
> stronger as a result.

Why?

Strong license checks is a home computer software thing.

In the professional market there is not much need. Relative
few cheat. And the usual way to check against cheating
is a software license audit.

Arne

On 2021-08-07, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these
>>> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just
>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>> I agree with this entirely.
>
> Given that VMS is mostly for professional usage and that
> software piracy is not common for professional usage, then
> it is not likely that software piracy is a major problem.
>

What about some people reusing licence keys for some Microsoft Windows
and Windows applications before online activation was implemented ?

Simon.

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

On 8/7/2021 7:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
> the same licence key on different PCs ? In other words, how many people
> had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?

Among the home PC build it yourself enthusiasts: millions.

But that is not the market VMS is into.

Arne

On 8/7/2021 7:28 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these
>>>> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just
>>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>>> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>>
>>> I agree with this entirely.
>>
>> Given that VMS is mostly for professional usage and that
>> software piracy is not common for professional usage, then
>> it is not likely that software piracy is a major problem.
>
> What about some people reusing licence keys for some Microsoft Windows
> and Windows applications before online activation was implemented ?

What about that?

Home usage <> professional usage.

Arne

On 2021-08-07, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
> is using x86 VMS. From the beginning, they implement some sort of
> reporting scheme. For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI. There
> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be handled.
>

SOD THAT !!!!!

That raises all kinds of security and denial of service issues.

People could be persuaded to allow this for a one-time licence
activation process but there's no way that many people are going
to allow that on an ongoing basis as part of the boot process and
then stop the boot if the check in with VSI fails.

What happens if you have external communications down ?

What happens if VSI have system availability issues ?

What happens if VSI goes bust ?

Simon.

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

On 2021-08-07, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:28 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> What about some people reusing licence keys for some Microsoft Windows
>> and Windows applications before online activation was implemented ?
>
> What about that?
>
> Home usage <> professional usage.
>

So you are saying that businesses never reused Windows and Windows
applications licence keys before Windows activation was invented ?

Simon.

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

On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>                                                       Go read some
>>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems".  Not specifically
>>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>>
>> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>
> Being old is never a problem in itself.  I'm old and regularly
> compete with people less than half my age, successfully.
>
>> It becomes a problem if:
>> - it is out of support
>
> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
> abandon it in its entirety.

If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.

And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
about whether other parts will go out of support soon.

>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>
> That is a fixable problem.
>
> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/

That is a good proposal.

But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
such a bill get approved, that funding will continue in the future
and that students will be interested?

>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>    integrate with
>
> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
> integrated into a modern system.  I have had no problems doing web
> programming with COBOL.

Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.

But good integration will often be either impossible or
expensive.

>> - it is expensive to maintain
>
> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
> subjective.  A little research will show how the majority of
> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
> seldom accomplish their original goal.

Huge IT projects are in general risky.

Migration projects are no exception.

Arne

On 8/7/2021 7:40 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 7:28 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> What about some people reusing licence keys for some Microsoft Windows
>>> and Windows applications before online activation was implemented ?
>>
>> What about that?
>>
>> Home usage <> professional usage.
>
> So you are saying that businesses never reused Windows and Windows
> applications licence keys before Windows activation was invented ?

That must have been pretty rare.

Companies in general do not want to base their business on
software piracy.

BTW, corporate Windows PC's does not activate Windows
licenses like home PC's does. MS licenses are a jungle, but
my understanding of current practice is that there are
MAK licenses where the same license can be activated multiple times
similar way as home PC's and KMS where PC's activate from
corporate KMS server without talking to MS.

Arne

On 8/7/21 7:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
>> using pakgen.c. I doubt any legitimate business would as the legal
>> implications (even without VSI being involved) as a serious concern.
>> You don't think the auditors or legal department would be looking at
>> this?
>>
>
> Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
> the same licence key on different PCs ?

In home use, I am sure a few. But being as every box bought by
none geeks came with a copy of the current Windows OS what reason
would people have had?

> In other words, how many people
> had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?

I suspect not as many as you would like to think. See the reason above.

And between home and office it is like hobbyist and production.
While there may be some in home use (but I suspect less than
you might be hoping for to support your argument) among office
systems I expect the number is a statistically insignificant
number greater than zero.

I am a geek and all of my Windows systems (a dwindling number lately)
have been legitimately licensed and that includes the 98, NT and 2000
systems I still play with.

bill

On 8/7/21 7:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
>> the same licence key on different PCs ? In other words, how many people
>> had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?
>
> Among the home PC build it yourself enthusiasts: millions.
>
> But that is not the market VMS is into.
>

I suspect that most of the home PC build it yourself market are
not running Windows at all but Linux, BSD or something else.

bill

On 8/7/21 7:35 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
>> is using x86 VMS. From the beginning, they implement some sort of
>> reporting scheme. For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI. There
>> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be handled.
>>
>
> SOD THAT !!!!!
>
> That raises all kinds of security and denial of service issues.
>
> People could be persuaded to allow this for a one-time licence
> activation process but there's no way that many people are going
> to allow that on an ongoing basis as part of the boot process and
> then stop the boot if the check in with VSI fails.
>
> What happens if you have external communications down ?
>
> What happens if VSI have system availability issues ?
>
> What happens if VSI goes bust ?
>

What happens if your on SIPRnet? :-)

bill

On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>                                                       Go read some
>>>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems".  Not specifically
>>>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>>>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>>>
>>> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>>
>> Being old is never a problem in itself.  I'm old and regularly
>> compete with people less than half my age, successfully.
>>
>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>> - it is out of support
>>
>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>> abandon it in its entirety.
>
> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.

If your running a VAX then it might be a problem. But, believe it
or not, most legacy systems are not running on old or non-existant
hardware. VMS being the main exception. :-)

>
> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.

As has been stated here numerous times in the past, unless you are
running custom hardware and doing things like device control this
is not likely to be a problem. let's limit this to the kind of
things VMS is actually used for in most cases.

>
>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>
>> That is a fixable problem.
>>
>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>
> That is a good proposal.
>
> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
> such a bill get approved,

I have little doubt that it will be approved. Financially it is a
totally non-apparent bump in the budget.

> that funding will continue in the future

That will depend on whether or not academia decides to swallow their
pride and get behind the idea. I am doing what I can to try and help
it, but for totally non-technical reasons it is going to be a hard sell.

> and that students will be interested?

I had students interested in legacy systems when I still worked at
the University even with members of the faculty attacking much of
what I was selling.

>
>>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>>    integrate with
>>
>> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
>> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
>> integrated into a modern system.  I have had no problems doing web
>> programming with COBOL.
>
> Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.

I needed no hacks to get COBOL running on the web. It's a mindset
problem, not a technical one.

>
> But good integration will often be either impossible or
> expensive.

I would like to see examples of this, Real ones, not some of the
typical contrived examples I usually see where the target moves
with every new iteration. There are a lot of modern, used everyday
ISes that are based on what are called legacy systems and languages.
MOst of the users never notice.

>
>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>
>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>> subjective.  A little research will show how the majority of
>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>
> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>
> Migration projects are no exception.
>

Which is all the more reason to stay the course and clearly
understand "modernization" before you start throwing terms
around. A COBOL IS running on a PDP-11 or TOPS system does
not need a new language. Re-writting it in Java or C# or
even Python will get you nothing but a potential for new
bugs, inefficiencies and business logic problems.

bill

On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 7:28 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> What about some people reusing licence keys for some Microsoft Windows
>>> and Windows applications before online activation was implemented ?
>>
>> What about that?
>>
>> Home usage <> professional usage.
>>
>
> So you are saying that businesses never reused Windows and Windows
> applications licence keys before Windows activation was invented ?
>

Highly unlikely. Legal would have people fired for that. And,
it would be totally unnecessary as the cost is a write-off like
the phone bill, the purchase of the computer, etc. etc. etc.

bill

On 8/7/2021 7:35 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
>> is using x86 VMS. From the beginning, they implement some sort of
>> reporting scheme. For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI. There
>> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be handled.
>>
>
> SOD THAT !!!!!

I didn't say it would be a good idea, it was just something I thought
of. Something like that would have been much harder (or impossible) in
the 1970s and 1980s. But today, the concept of always knowing who is
running VMS might be interesting.

Perhaps it would require all VSI employees to have a top secret clearance.

:-)

> That raises all kinds of security and denial of service issues.

Perhaps, and perhaps there would be solutions.

> People could be persuaded to allow this for a one-time licence
> activation process but there's no way that many people are going
> to allow that on an ongoing basis as part of the boot process and
> then stop the boot if the check in with VSI fails.

Maybe it would not stop booting and running?

> What happens if you have external communications down ?

Phone call? Oh, wait, phones are "communications".

> What happens if VSI have system availability issues ?

Phone call?

> What happens if VSI goes bust ?

Seems like we already got that ...

Instead of complaining, why don't you think of possible solutions.
Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions.

--
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 8/7/2021 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> Go read some
>>>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems". Not specifically
>>>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>>>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>>>
>>> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>>
>> Being old is never a problem in itself. I'm old and regularly
>> compete with people less than half my age, successfully.

Wrestling?

:-)

>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>> - it is out of support
>>
>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>> abandon it in its entirety.
>
> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.

Anything can be replaced. The required effort may or may not be excessive.

> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.

Vs the cost of doing a replacement?

>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>
>> That is a fixable problem.
>>
>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>
> That is a good proposal.
>
> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
> such a bill get approved, that funding will continue in the future
> and that students will be interested?

Students are interested in getting jobs.

Now, the damn educators who think they know everything, maybe they
should not have jobs.

>>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>> integrate with
>>
>> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
>> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
>> integrated into a modern system. I have had no problems doing web
>> programming with COBOL.

Basic is no different than any other language.

> Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.
>
> But good integration will often be either impossible or
> expensive.

BULLSHIT !!!!

>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>
>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>> subjective. A little research will show how the majority of
>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>
> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>
> Migration projects are no exception.

And if it ain't broke, why fix it?

--
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 8/7/2021 8:24 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> Go read some
>>>>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems". Not specifically
>>>>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>>>>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>>>
>>> Being old is never a problem in itself. I'm old and regularly
>>> compete with people less than half my age, successfully.
>>>
>>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>>> - it is out of support
>>>
>>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>>> abandon it in its entirety.
>>
>> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.
>
> If your running a VAX then it might be a problem. But, believe it
> or not, most legacy systems are not running on old or non-existant
> hardware. VMS being the main exception. :-)

People are using VAX emulators that run quite a bit faster than any VAX.

>> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
>> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
>> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.
>
> As has been stated here numerous times in the past, unless you are
> running custom hardware and doing things like device control this
> is not likely to be a problem. let's limit this to the kind of
> things VMS is actually used for in most cases.

What? Common sense in c.o.v? No, we can't have any of that.

>>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>>
>>> That is a fixable problem.
>>>
>>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>>
>> That is a good proposal.
>>
>> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
>> such a bill get approved,
>
> I have little doubt that it will be approved. Financially it is a
> totally non-apparent bump in the budget.
>
>> that funding will continue in the future
>
> That will depend on whether or not academia decides to swallow their
> pride and get behind the idea. I am doing what I can to try and help
> it, but for totally non-technical reasons it is going to be a hard sell.
>
>> and that students will be interested?
>
> I had students interested in legacy systems when I still worked at
> the University even with members of the faculty attacking much of
> what I was selling.
>
>>
>>>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>>> integrate with
>>>
>>> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
>>> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
>>> integrated into a modern system. I have had no problems doing web
>>> programming with COBOL.
>>
>> Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.
>
> I needed no hacks to get COBOL running on the web. It's a mindset
> problem, not a technical one.
>
>>
>> But good integration will often be either impossible or
>> expensive.
>
> I would like to see examples of this, Real ones, not some of the
> typical contrived examples I usually see where the target moves
> with every new iteration. There are a lot of modern, used everyday
> ISes that are based on what are called legacy systems and languages.
> MOst of the users never notice.
>
>>
>>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>>
>>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>>> subjective. A little research will show how the majority of
>>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>>
>> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>>
>> Migration projects are no exception.
>>
>
> Which is all the more reason to stay the course and clearly
> understand "modernization" before you start throwing terms
> around. A COBOL IS running on a PDP-11 or TOPS system does
> not need a new language. Re-writting it in Java or C# or
> even Python will get you nothing but a potential for new
> bugs, inefficiencies and business logic problems.
>
> bill
>

--
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 Sat, 07 Aug 2021 23:26:24 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> But they haven't been available for some months for VAX, and there will
>> be no more.
>>
>>
> The final hobbyist VAX licences (and HPE Alpha VMS licences) expire at
> the end of this year. The final licences were given an extra year to
> run.

That's what I meant by 'there will be no more'.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 8/7/21 10:17 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:35 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-08-07, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
>>> is using x86 VMS.  From the beginning, they implement some sort of
>>> reporting scheme.  For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI.  There
>>> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be
>>> handled.
>>>
>>
>> SOD THAT !!!!!
>
> I didn't say it would be a good idea, it was just something I thought
> of.  Something like that would have been much harder (or impossible) in
> the 1970s and 1980s.  But today, the concept of always knowing who is
> running VMS might be interesting.
>
> Perhaps it would require all VSI employees to have a top secret clearance.
>
> :-)

Having a security clearance does not automatically grant you access
to classified information.

>
>> That raises all kinds of security and denial of service issues.
>
> Perhaps, and perhaps there would be solutions.

Yes, and one of those solutions would be to move off of VMS. :-)

>
>> People could be persuaded to allow this for a one-time licence
>> activation process but there's no way that many people are going
>> to allow that on an ongoing basis as part of the boot process and
>> then stop the boot if the check in with VSI fails.
>
> Maybe it would not stop booting and running?

If it doesn't do something what would be the point?

>
>> What happens if you have external communications down ?
>
> Phone call?  Oh, wait, phones are "communications".
>
>> What happens if VSI have system availability issues ?
>
> Phone call?

If all they have is 5 customers, that might work.

>
>> What happens if VSI goes bust ?
>
> Seems like we already got that ...
>
>
> Instead of complaining, why don't you think of possible solutions. Don't
> bring me problems, bring me solutions.
>

The two sides of this discussion have opposing needs and desires. A
satisfactory solution could be more difficult than you think.

bill

On 8/7/2021 8:06 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/7/21 7:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 7:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
>>> the same licence key on different PCs ? In other words, how many people
>>> had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?
>>
>> Among the home PC build it yourself enthusiasts: millions.
>>
>> But that is not the market VMS is into.
>
> I suspect that most of the home PC build it yourself market are
> not running Windows at all but Linux, BSD or something else.

Nope.

A very large portion of home built PC's are gamer rigs
running Windows.

Arne

On 8/7/2021 8:24 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>                                                       Go read some
>>>>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems".  Not specifically
>>>>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>>>>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>>>
>>> Being old is never a problem in itself.  I'm old and regularly
>>> compete with people less than half my age, successfully.
>>>
>>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>>> - it is out of support
>>>
>>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>>> abandon it in its entirety.
>>
>> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.
>
> If your running a VAX then it might be a problem.  But, believe it
> or not, most legacy systems are not running on old or non-existant
> hardware.  VMS being the main exception.  :-)

Things goes out of support all the time.

CPU architectures (ISA).

OS. Either completely or on specific CPU architecture.

Database servers, web servers, application servers,
message queue servers, cache servers etc.. Either completely
or on specific OS or on specific OS and CPU architecture
combination.

Libraries.

Shrinking OS are obviously harder hit than growing OS, but
it is far from a VMS specific problem.

>> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
>> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
>> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.
>
> As has been stated here numerous times in the past, unless you are
> running custom hardware and doing things like device control this
> is not likely to be a problem.

Of course it is a problem.

Remember what happened when Oracle announced that they would
drop support for VMS in Oracle DB client library? Not only was it a
problem for those using Oracle DB, but it also worried those
using Oracle Rdb a bit.

>>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>>
>>> That is a fixable problem.
>>>
>>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>>
>> That is a good proposal.
>>
>> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
>> such a bill get approved,
>
> I  have little doubt that it will be approved.  Financially it is a
> totally non-apparent bump in the budget.
>
>>                            that funding will continue in the future
>
> That will depend on whether or not academia decides to swallow their
> pride and get behind the idea.  I am doing what I can to try and help
> it, but for totally non-technical reasons it is going to be a hard sell.
>
>> and that students will be interested?
>
> I had students interested in legacy systems when I still worked at
> the University even with members of the faculty attacking much of
> what I was selling.

Bottom line: lots of hope but nothing sure.

Most businesses will prefer a technology where they know
they can get people over a technology where they hope
they can get people.

>>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>>
>>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>>> subjective.  A little research will show how the majority of
>>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>>
>> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>>
>> Migration projects are no exception.
>>
>
> Which is all the more reason to stay the course and clearly
> understand "modernization" before you start throwing terms
> around.  A COBOL IS running on a PDP-11 or TOPS system does
> not need a new language.  Re-writting it in Java or C# or
> even Python will get you nothing but a potential for new
> bugs, inefficiencies and business logic problems.

Not true.

It will get you on a supported platform where you can
easily get people with the skills.

Yes - a migration come with some risk.

Main risk mitigation factor is the skills of those
doing the migration.

Arne

On 8/7/2021 10:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> It becomes a problem if:
>>>> - it is out of support
>>>
>>> Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
>>> abandon it in its entirety.
>>
>> If that part cannot be replaced: yes it is.
>
> Anything can be replaced.  The required effort may or may not be excessive.

The effort of creating a CPU replacement or an OS replacement
or a database replacement will be excessive for sure.

>> And even if that part can be replaced then the question is at what
>> cost compared top the replacement. And it also raises the question
>> about whether other parts will go out of support soon.
>
> Vs the cost of doing a replacement?

The logic goes like:
- if it cost 1 M$ to replace A
- if it cost 2 M$ to migrate
- then just looking at A make migration a bad plan
- but if B, C, D and E are all going to go out of support within
the next 3 years and they will also cost 1 M$ a piece to replace
the the migration business case looks much better

>>>> - it is hard to find people with skills
>>>
>>> That is a fixable problem.
>>>
>>> https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/
>>
>> That is a good proposal.
>>
>> But do you expect serious companies to base their future on that
>> such a bill get approved, that funding will continue in the future
>> and that students will be interested?
>
> Students are interested in getting jobs.
>
> Now, the damn educators who think they know everything, maybe they
> should not have jobs.

Business has to act according to how the world is not how
the world should be.

>>>> - it is expensive to maintain
>>>
>>> In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
>>> subjective.  A little research will show how the majority of
>>> these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
>>> seldom accomplish their original goal.
>>
>> Huge IT projects are in general risky.
>>
>> Migration projects are no exception.
>
> And if it ain't broke, why fix it?

If you have commitments from vendors that the HW and SW
will be supported for 10+ years and you get hundreds
of qualified applicants when you put up a job ad and
the users are happy with the cost and time to integrate with
other solutions, then there is no reason to fix anything.

But ...

Arne

In article <sekme9$96d$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>On 2021-08-06, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/6/2021 8:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
>>> a strong response from VSI.
>>>
>>> For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
>>> collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
>>> users don't try "cheating".
>>
>> The first part of that is reasonable and how things must be if VSI and
>> VMS are going to be around for a while.
>>
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>
>If VSI were not worried about such things, they would not be
>implementing time-limited licences on production machines.
>
>Whether they are actually _right_ to be worried about such things
>is a question I cannot answer.

LMF, the way it has been used by the keepers and caretakers of VMS, isn't
strong. However, when it was implemented, VMS engineering said it wasn't
intended to be a enforcement tool. There are fields in the LMF PAK that
can be employed to make PAK verification stronger. I routinely make use
of the hardware ID and token fields to strengthen enforcement. Perhaps,
before complaining about a VMS tool, you should learn a little bit more
about the tool.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

In article <sen4f7$sfu$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
>> of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
>> company was a bit disorganised.
>>
>
>There is a major change between then and now.
>
>Back in those days hardware cost a _lot_ of money. If you had enough
>money to buy the hardware, you also had enough money to buy the
>software.
>
>These days hardware is cheap compared to the cost of the software.
>There is a much stronger motivation for some people to try and
>break the licencing so they can run the expensive software on
>cheap hardware.
>
>The old LMF is no longer suitable for purpose in this new world
>with its different dynamics and I would be absolutely amazed
>if VSI were not looking at making the licencing software much
>stronger as a result.

HOW is it no longer suitable? More WEENDOZE-like licensing? There
have been publications of a Micro$oft checksum sieve too. Is theirs
unsuitable as well?

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.