On 12/10/2021 6:55 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 4:52 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 2:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/10/21 1:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>>> licensing to
>>>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>
>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like bad planning on the part of the business. Even the PDP-11
>>> didn't just die one day. Same thing with Pr1me. And I am sure most
>>> other companies that have gone the way of the dodo. If one suspects
>>> they are running on a system with such a potential, it is part of
>>> their due diligence to look for solutions before the day of disaster.
>>
>> So what are you saying? Everyone using VMS today should start a port and dump
>> VMS? Be specific.
>>
>>
>
> If they truly think that VMS is going to die, yes. BUt I don't know
> that the threat actually exists. But If I were running a company
> dependent on it I would keep my eye on options. No cruise ship plans
> on sinking but they all care lifeboats.
>
> bill
>

Yep. Got a plan. Don't want it to happen, but if VSI should fail, we'd
continue to use VMS, at least until other options could be explored. Isn't that
what the topic is about? Continuing to run the VMS system already in use?

--
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 12/10/2021 6:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 4:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> We are talking hypothetical here. I'm not advocating anything today.
>>
>> Don't vendors make a commitment to customers when they sell them the use of
>> something like VMS? If so, and the vendor defaults, isn't that an issue?
>> Don't customers have any rights? Is it really stealing to continue to use a
>> product that one purchased in good faith?
>
> If VSI sell you a license to run VMS from time 1-JAN-2022 to forever
> or from 1-JAN-2022 to 31-DEC-2023, then you have a right to exactly that.

But VSI also says you can purchase another year of support, right?

--
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 12/10/21 8:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 7:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>>
>>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>>
>>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then
>>> there isn't
>>> an issue, is there?
>>>
>>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to
>>> really
>>> give a damn?
>>
>> There can be cases where there is an entity  willing
>> to sue copyright violaters without being  willing to
>> sell a license.
>
> It occurs to me this can be reversed.  Customers have an implied, if not
> more specific, contract with the vendor.

There is no such thing as an implied license. All the terms of a
contract are spelled out in the contract.

> Should another entity acquire
> the software, and not fulfill this contract, perhaps they could be sued
> to force them to honor the contract.  Acquire the product, you also
> acquire the responsibilities.

That is true. But only so far as spelled out int he contact. And
with no requirement to renew or extend the contract when it runs out.

>
> This could be fun.  Lawyers could have a field day.

Much less than you think. They will read the contract and tell you
what the spelled out terms are and that is all you get.

>
> :-)
>
>>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a
>>>>> customer's business?
>>>>
>>>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>>>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Porting is not an option.
>>
>> Porting is per definition an option for all software
>> at all time.
>
> Not when cost is involved.

Cost is not an issue except in the choice of whether or not to
do a port. Cost does not make the port impossible. it might
make it impractical but that is the choice the one considering
the port has to make. Your argument is like saying Porsches
are impossible because less than 1% of the population of the
world can afford one.

>
>> Everybody makes the decision to port or not port
>> all the time - some think about it - some make a
>> decision by not thinking about it.
>>
>> You can look at expected cost, risk and benefits of not
>> porting and you look at expected cost, risk and benefits
>> of porting and you make a decision.
>>
>> A port may be a rewrite from scratch if the code is
>> totally non-portable. But there are plenty of
>> technologies out there to pick and chose from.
>>
>> Arne
>
>

bill

On 12/10/2021 8:16 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 6:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 4:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> We are talking hypothetical here.  I'm not advocating anything today.
>>>
>>> Don't vendors make a commitment to customers when they sell them the
>>> use of
>>> something like VMS?  If so, and the vendor defaults, isn't that an
>>> issue?
>>> Don't customers have any rights?  Is it really stealing to continue
>>> to use a
>>> product that one purchased in good faith?
>>
>> If VSI sell you a license to run VMS from time 1-JAN-2022 to forever
>> or from 1-JAN-2022 to 31-DEC-2023, then you have a right to exactly that.
>
> But VSI also says you can purchase another year of support, right?

I don't think VSI has made legal commitments that you will be able
to purchase what you can today indefinitely out in the future.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 8:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 7:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>
>>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>>
>>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>>
>>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then
>>> there isn't
>>> an issue, is there?
>>>
>>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to
>>> really
>>> give a damn?
>>
>> There can be cases where there is an entity  willing
>> to sue copyright violaters without being  willing to
>> sell a license.
>
> It occurs to me this can be reversed.  Customers have an implied, if not
> more specific, contract with the vendor.  Should another entity acquire
> the software, and not fulfill this contract, perhaps they could be sued
> to force them to honor the contract.  Acquire the product, you also
> acquire the responsibilities.
>
> This could be fun.  Lawyers could have a field day.
>
> :-)

If you happens to be the first in the history of mankind that
got a contract that gives you the right to purchase a given software
indefinitely out in the future, then you can sue.

If not then there is no case.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>
> Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
> Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
> of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.

The risk seems pretty low to me.

The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
hardware available for many years to come.

VSI seems to adjust ambition level to what they can pay for.
Which may be frustrating in the perspective of getting a lot
of new features very quickly, but is very good from a
financial risk perspective. Less revenue will not result
in bankruptcy but just result in slower pace of rollout of
new features.

There is practically zero risk that VSI will ditch VMS as
VMS is their only business.

Not bad.

Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
customers would always have N years left on their
licenses.

Arne

In article <sp09f5$ap3$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>> do this bypass ?
>>>
>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>
>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>
>
>So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
>the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?

No *patch* required. ;)

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

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>>
>> Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
>> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
>> Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
>> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
>> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
>> of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.
>
> The risk seems pretty low to me.

I agree that the risk today, based on the information publicly
available, seems quite low.

>
> The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
> hardware available for many years to come.

But it is not going to run (or, at least, not be supported) on
that cheap hardware. I doubt Acer is one of their targets.

>
> VSI seems to adjust ambition level to what they can pay for.
> Which may be frustrating in the perspective of getting a lot
> of new features very quickly, but is very good from a
> financial risk perspective. Less revenue will not result
> in bankruptcy but just result in slower pace of rollout of
> new features.

But it may result in less customers. They are already fighting
an uphill battle selling something that the industry tells people
is a dead end. Kind of like COBOL. It is probably one of the
most used languages for serious business applications in use
today. Some of the largest information systems in the world
are written in it. Everybody is affected by its use every day.
And yet, because academia continues to denigrate it and refuses
to teach it the pool of technicians competent in its use continues
to drop. Likewise, I doubt there are any CIO's telling their
companies to jump on the VMS bandwagon especially when their
CISO is telling them "VMS bad, Windows good".

>
> There is practically zero risk that VSI will ditch VMS as
> VMS is their only business.

It has never been a concern that VSI would ditch VMS. It is the
rest of the IT world ditching VMS that is the threat. Not only
to VMS, but also to VSI.

>
> Not bad.
>
> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
> customers would always have N years left on their
> licenses.

And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI. An
interesting paradox.

bill

On 12/11/21 8:19 AM, VAXman-@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <sp09f5$ap3$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>
>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>
>>
>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>
> No *patch* required. ;)
>

True. There is always PAKGEN. Not legal, but we have had enough
people here express their lack of concern that it is obviously
seen as a potential solution.

bill

On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>>>
>>> Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
>>> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
>>> Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
>>> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
>>> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
>>> of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.
>>
>> The risk seems pretty low to me.
>
> I agree that the risk today, based on the information publicly
> available,  seems quite low.
>
>> The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
>> hardware available for many years to come.
>
> But it is not going to run (or, at least, not be supported) on
> that cheap hardware.  I doubt Acer is one of their targets.

Low end x86-64 servers are pretty cheap.

You run maybe 10 VM's on a 5000 dollars physical server. I consider
that very cheap compared to previous.

You can run in public cloud for like 10 cent per hour.

Heck - you can run in VM on a cheap Acer laptop. Not
for production but ...

>> VSI seems to adjust ambition level to what they can pay for.
>> Which may be frustrating in the perspective of getting a lot
>> of new features very quickly, but is very good from a
>> financial risk perspective. Less revenue will not result
>> in bankruptcy but just result in slower pace of rollout of
>> new features.
>
> But it may result in less customers.  They are already fighting
> an uphill battle selling something that the industry tells people
> is a dead end.

The existing customers require relative little new features.

New customers will require a lot of new features.

A delay in new features is not likely to cause many existing customers
to drop VMS, but it will certainly delay getting new customers.

>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>> customers would always have N years left on their
>> licenses.
>
> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
> interesting paradox.

Depends on the model.

The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
extend for next year.

Arne

On 12/11/21 9:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>>>>
>>>> Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
>>>> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
>>>> Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
>>>> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
>>>> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
>>>> of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.
>>>
>>> The risk seems pretty low to me.
>>
>> I agree that the risk today, based on the information publicly
>> available,  seems quite low.
>>
>>> The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
>>> hardware available for many years to come.
>>
>> But it is not going to run (or, at least, not be supported) on
>> that cheap hardware.  I doubt Acer is one of their targets.
>
> Low end x86-64 servers are pretty cheap.
>
> You run maybe 10 VM's on a 5000 dollars physical server. I consider
> that very cheap compared to previous.

OK. I read that as "running on cheap hardware" not "running in
VM's on cheap hardware".

>
> You can run in public cloud for like 10 cent per hour.

My opinion of public cloud should be well known here by now.

>
> Heck - you can run in VM on a cheap Acer laptop. Not
> for production but ...
>
>>> VSI seems to adjust ambition level to what they can pay for.
>>> Which may be frustrating in the perspective of getting a lot
>>> of new features very quickly, but is very good from a
>>> financial risk perspective. Less revenue will not result
>>> in bankruptcy but just result in slower pace of rollout of
>>> new features.
>>
>> But it may result in less customers.  They are already fighting
>> an uphill battle selling something that the industry tells people
>> is a dead end.
>
> The existing customers require relative little new features.

That is one of the potential problems with some of the suggested
long term licensing proposals.

>
> New customers will require a lot of new features.

True, and that is also a serious problem.

>
> A delay in new features is not likely to cause many existing customers
> to drop VMS, but it will certainly delay getting new customers.
>
>>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>>> customers would always have N years left on their
>>> licenses.
>>
>> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
>> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
>> interesting paradox.
>
> Depends on the model.
>
> The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
> 5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
> extend for next year.

Don't know about in other countries, but that would pretty much
eliminate the US Government as a potential customer. Also not
really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.

bill

On 12/11/2021 8:26 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 8:19 AM, VAXman-@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <sp09f5$ap3$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>>> licensing to
>>>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>
>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
>>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>>
>> No *patch* required. ;)
>>
>
> True. There is always PAKGEN. Not legal, but we have had enough
> people here express their lack of concern that it is obviously
> seen as a potential solution.
>
> bill
>

Either you just don't "get it", or, perhaps you just don't care.

The need for such an action would only occur if for some reason people could no
longer use their VMS solutions. I really don't want to see that happen. That's
why I won't discuss methods. It would still be rather sub-optimal. VMS users
need VSI (or something similar) to continue to develop VMS, to correct errors,
to insure security, and such. Usage without that would not be a good thing.

But the actual issue, to me, is the harm done if all of a sudden VMS systems
stop working, companies fail, many people lose their jobs, a real mess. In such
a case I for one would not care about any copyright issues. I would "do the
right thing".

One can hope that never happens. But in a world where once again the Taliban
are chucking a girl in a pit and chucking rocks at her, I'd hoped that would
never happen either.

Do you care 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 12/11/2021 10:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 9:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>>>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>>>> customers would always have N years left on their
>>>> licenses.
>>>
>>> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
>>> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
>>> interesting paradox.
>>
>> Depends on the model.
>>
>> The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
>> 5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
>> extend for next year.
>
> Don't know about in other countries, but that would pretty much
> eliminate the US Government as a potential customer.

I doubt that. It is quite common to pay upfront for 5 years.

>   Also not
> really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
> require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.

????

In 2022 VSI sell a 5 year license good to 2027. In 2023
VSI sell an extension so it is good until 2028. That should
be fine for VSI. They do not guarantee anything - they just
sell a license valid for a number of years.

Arne

On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Kind of like COBOL.  It is probably one of the
> most used languages for serious business applications in use
> today.  Some of the largest information systems in the world
> are written in it.  Everybody is affected by its use every day.

If an application:
- is processing money
- first version was written before 1995
- has not been rewritten after 1995
then there is a good chance that it is in Cobol.

And a lot of those applications are very important applications.

But I am not so sure that it is one of the most used languages.
The estimate is that Cobol is about 200 billion out of 3 trillion lines
of code (7%). And based on hiring statistics it looks like Cobol
work is like 1% of development work being done.

And all the largest systems are distributed. They use
Hadoop, Cassandra, Kafka etc.. Traditional technologies
does simply not scale to that level.

> And yet, because academia continues to denigrate it and refuses
> to teach it the pool of technicians competent in its use continues
> to drop.

Very few new people learn Cobol.

But is there a need for more Cobol programmers?

If there were then the salaries for Cobol programmer would
sky rocket.

It has not.

Arne

On 12/11/21 10:56 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 8:26 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 8:19 AM, VAXman-@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> In article <sp09f5$ap3$1@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our
>>>>>>> customers have
>>>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our
>>>>>>> ethics.  However,
>>>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such
>>>>>>> support, and the
>>>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>>>> licensing to
>>>>>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to
>>>> create
>>>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>>>
>>> No *patch* required. ;)
>>>
>>
>> True.  There is always PAKGEN.  Not legal, but we have had enough
>> people here express their lack of concern that it is obviously
>> seen as a potential solution.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> Either you just don't "get it", or, perhaps you just don't care.

Oh, I get it. And I do care. But probably not about the same things
you care about.

>
> The need for such an action would only occur if for some reason people
> could no longer use their VMS solutions.

And that will not happen overnight. If there is even the slightest
possibility of it occurring then people should be making plans for
it now and not waiting until it is a crisis. That's what Risk
Assessment and Due Diligence are all about.

> I really don't want to see
> that happen.  That's why I won't discuss methods.  It would still be
> rather sub-optimal.  VMS users need VSI (or something similar) to
> continue to develop VMS, to correct errors, to insure security, and
> such.  Usage without that would not be a good thing.
>
> But the actual issue, to me, is the harm done if all of a sudden VMS
> systems stop working, companies fail, many people lose their jobs, a
> real mess.

And who's fault would that be?

> In such a case I for one would not care about any copyright
> issues.  I  would "do the right thing".

So, I take it you go along with the current idea being pushed by the
Dems that all this looting is justified because people are hungry?
Wrong is no longer wrong if it doesn't coincide with your desires.

>
> One can hope that never happens.

But one should be working on contingencies now and not waiting until
disaster strikes. Would you not buy insurance and then just take
your neighbors car when yours gets wrecked through no fault of your
own?

> But in a world where once again the
> Taliban are chucking a girl in a pit and chucking rocks at her, I'd
> hoped that would never happen either.
>
> Do you care Bill ???

Do I care about what? I care about my dog. I also care about other
people's property. I don't shoplift (even though it is now not even
illegal in many jurisdictions). While, as I said, I no longer have
a dog in the fight, I am still active in the IT world (business and
academia) and I continue to champion the things that are good business
and point out those practices that are not.

bill

On 12/11/21 11:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 10:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 9:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>>>>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>>>>> customers would always have N years left on their
>>>>> licenses.
>>>>
>>>> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
>>>> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
>>>> interesting paradox.
>>>
>>> Depends on the model.
>>>
>>> The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
>>> 5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
>>> extend for next year.
>>
>> Don't know about in other countries, but that would pretty much
>> eliminate the US Government as a potential customer.
>
> I doubt that. It is quite common to pay upfront for 5 years.

No agency of the US Government can commit funds beyond the end
of the Fiscal Year. There are no 5 year contracts. Only 1 year
contracts with 4 additional renewals. And then only if the budget
for the next year includes funds for that renewal. I once worked
for a company that won a contract to provide all sorts of IT gear
to the DOD with riders that let other agencies piggyback on it.
It was for several years and several hundred million dollars. And
that was 35 years ago when that was still a lot of money. It
everything from micros to minicomputers. All kinds of networking
hardware. All kinds of COTS software. It made the headlines in
the CBD, Infoweek and other trade rags. One year later most of
the stuff on the list was also on the GSA list. The contract was
not renewed. That particular company is no longer around and
probably not even remembered by those other than us who worked
there. :-)

>
>>                                                       Also not
>> really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
>> require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.
>
> ????
>
> In 2022 VSI sell a 5 year license good to 2027. In 2023
> VSI sell an extension so it is good until 2028. That should
> be fine for VSI. They do not guarantee anything - they just
> sell a license valid for a number of years.
>

In the end of 2023 customers opt to not buy the 2029 extension
(or any beyond that). That leaves VSI with a remaining 3 year
commitment and no incoming revenue. As a three letter (beginning
with C) executive in the company, would you agree to do that?

bill

On 12/11/2021 1:14 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 11:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 10:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>                                                       Also not
>>> really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
>>> require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> In 2022 VSI sell a 5 year license good to 2027. In 2023
>> VSI sell an extension so it is good until 2028. That should
>> be fine for VSI. They do not guarantee anything - they just
>> sell a license valid for a number of years.
>
> In the end of 2023 customers opt to not buy the 2029 extension
> (or any beyond that).  That leaves VSI with a remaining 3 year
> commitment and no incoming revenue.  As a three letter (beginning
> with C) executive in the company, would you agree to do that?

Of course.

Try compare the two scenarios.

1 year renewals:

2022 : X
2023 : X
2024 : X
2025 : X
2026 : X
2027 : X

5 year with annual extensions:

2022 : 5X
2023 : X
2024 :
2025 :
2026 :
2027 :

Assuming positive inflation/interest then the latter is more
favorable to VSI.

Arne

On 12/11/2021 1:14 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 11:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 10:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/11/21 9:58 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/21 8:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> Of course VSI could further reduce risk for users by
>>>>>> coming up with a license scheme that ensured that all
>>>>>> customers would always have N years left on their
>>>>>> licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, the only problem with that is what is good, longterm,
>>>>> for the customer may not be good, longterm, for VSI.  An
>>>>> interesting paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on the model.
>>>>
>>>> The model where customers extend 1 year every year so they always have
>>>> 5 years coverage is actually better for VSI than just having customers
>>>> extend for next year.
>>>
>>> Don't know about in other countries, but that would pretty much
>>> eliminate the US Government as a potential customer.
>>
>> I doubt that. It is quite common to pay upfront for 5 years.
>
> No agency of the US Government can commit funds beyond the end
> of the Fiscal Year.  There are no 5 year contracts.  Only 1 year
> contracts with 4 additional renewals.  And then only if the budget
> for the next year includes funds for that renewal.

JWCC is for 3 years with the possibility for 2 extensions of 1 year.

Apparently they can commit to more than 1 year if they want to.

Arne

On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>             Kind of like COBOL.  It is probably one of the
>> most used languages for serious business applications in use
>> today.  Some of the largest information systems in the world
>> are written in it.  Everybody is affected by its use every day.
>
> If an application:
> - is processing money
> - first version was written before 1995
> - has not been rewritten after 1995
> then there is a good chance that it is in Cobol.

And, not just processing money.

>
> And a lot of those applications are very important applications.
>
> But I am not so sure that it is one of the most used languages.

I didn't say most used languages. I limited myself to serious
business. There is no COBOL version of Candy Crush.

> The estimate is that Cobol is about 200 billion out of 3 trillion lines
> of code (7%). And based on hiring statistics it looks like Cobol
> work is like 1% of development work being done.

Many of the times those hiring statistics are compiled by thge
people trying to kill COBOL. I have watched the number of COBOL
jobs publicly advertised rise by more than 1000% in the past
5-10 years. I have followed and even been involved with some of
the largest COBOL users and watched their hiring practices. Believe it
or not, not everyone hires thru Indeed, Monster or Dice.

>
> And all the largest systems are distributed. They use
> Hadoop, Cassandra, Kafka etc.. Traditional technologies
> does simply not scale to that level.

You wanna bet? While some of the frontend stuff has mofrated to
the typical web crap the IRS for example is still a Unisys OS2200
shop with the code being mostly Legacy ACOB carried forward from
its origination on a UNIVAC 1100.

>
>> And yet, because academia continues to denigrate it and refuses
>> to teach it the pool of technicians competent in its use continues
>> to drop.
>
> Very few new people learn Cobol.

My point exactly.

>
> But is there a need for more Cobol programmers?

More everyday. And the COVID lockdowns have increased that as
many remote workers are opting to retire rather than return to
the office making the shortage worse.

>
> If there were then the salaries for Cobol programmer would
> sky rocket.

COBOL programmers have already been receiving 6 figure salaries.
the biggest reason for the lack of publicly viewable job offerings
has more to do with job stability than lack of jobs.

----------------------------------------------------

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

Salary
$92,914 - $120,789 per year

"Use Integrated Database Management System (IDMS), Common Business
Oriented Language (COBOL), and Job Control Language (JCL) in a
mainframe environment to design software for Payroll Systems used
by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service."

-------------------------------------------------------

This announcement or similar ones has been running almost constantly
for as long as I have been following the the business. More than 20
years.

>
> It has not.

Most of the places that employ COBOL programmers do not make salary
information available. Some take this to mean they don't pay. One
does not necessarily equate to the other.

bill

On 12/11/21 1:20 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 1:14 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 11:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 10:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>                                                       Also not
>>>> really something I can see VSI agreeing to because it would
>>>> require a commitment they probably could not guarantee.
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>> In 2022 VSI sell a 5 year license good to 2027. In 2023
>>> VSI sell an extension so it is good until 2028. That should
>>> be fine for VSI. They do not guarantee anything - they just
>>> sell a license valid for a number of years.
>>
>> In the end of 2023 customers opt to not buy the 2029 extension
>> (or any beyond that).  That leaves VSI with a remaining 3 year
>> commitment and no incoming revenue.  As a three letter (beginning
>> with C) executive in the company, would you agree to do that?
>
> Of course.
>
> Try compare the two scenarios.
>
> 1 year renewals:
>
> 2022 : X
> 2023 : X
> 2024 : X
> 2025 : X
> 2026 : X
> 2027 : X
>
> 5 year with annual extensions:
>
> 2022 : 5X
> 2023 : X
> 2024 :
> 2025 :
> 2026 :
> 2027 :
>
> Assuming positive inflation/interest then the latter is more
> favorable to VSI.
>

Both are equivalent in my example. Potential for an extended
commitment with no prospective revenue.

bill

On 12/11/2021 1:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>             Kind of like COBOL.  It is probably one of the
>>> most used languages for serious business applications in use
>>> today.  Some of the largest information systems in the world
>>> are written in it.  Everybody is affected by its use every day.
>>
>> If an application:
>> - is processing money
>> - first version was written before 1995
>> - has not been rewritten after 1995
>> then there is a good chance that it is in Cobol.
>
> And, not just processing money.
>
>> And a lot of those applications are very important applications.
>>
>> But I am not so sure that it is one of the most used languages.
>
> I didn't say most used languages.  I limited myself to serious
> business.  There is no COBOL version of Candy Crush.
>
>> The estimate is that Cobol is about 200 billion out of 3 trillion lines
>> of code (7%). And based on hiring statistics it looks like Cobol
>> work is like 1% of development work being done.
>
> Many of the times those hiring statistics are compiled by thge
> people trying to kill COBOL.

I am very skeptical about such a conspiracy theory.

>   I have watched the number of COBOL
> jobs publicly advertised rise by  more than 1000% in the past
> 5-10 years.

Hmmm.

At the big job sites the number of Cobol jobs has decreased by
2/3 the last 15 years.

>   I have followed and even been involved with some of
> the largest COBOL users and watched their hiring practices. Believe it
> or not, not everyone hires thru Indeed, Monster or Dice.

Not everyone.

But assuming that Cobol is many times more required in the total
job market than there seems like wishful thinking from someone that
likes Cobol.

>> And all the largest systems are distributed. They use
>> Hadoop, Cassandra, Kafka etc.. Traditional technologies
>> does simply not scale to that level.
>
> You wanna bet?  While some of the frontend stuff has mofrated to
> the typical web crap the IRS for example is still a Unisys OS2200
> shop with the code being mostly Legacy ACOB carried forward from
> its origination on a UNIVAC 1100.

Yes. And that system may have been a big system 30 years ago.

But today large systems are NNN/NNNN nodes, NNNN CPU's, N/NN TB memory
and N PB disk.

Arne

On 12/11/2021 1:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> If there were then the salaries for Cobol programmer would
>> sky rocket.
>
> COBOL programmers have already been receiving 6 figure salaries.
> the biggest reason for the lack of publicly viewable job offerings
> has more to do with job stability than lack of jobs.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Defense Finance and Accounting Service
>
> Salary
> $92,914 - $120,789 per year
>
> "Use Integrated Database Management System (IDMS), Common Business
> Oriented Language (COBOL), and Job Control Language (JCL) in a
> mainframe environment to design software for Payroll Systems used
> by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service."
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> This announcement or similar ones has been running almost constantly
> for as long as I have been following the the business.  More than 20
> years.

The above snippet does not say whether it is 0/5/10/20 years of
experienced they are looking for or whether it is in New York/Boston
/Seattle/San Francisco/Mountain View or Kansas/Arkansas
/Missouri/Alabama they are looking

So it is hard to say whether it is a great salary or a
crap salary.

But it is not a sky rocket salary.

>> It has not.
>
> Most of the places that employ COBOL programmers do not make salary
> information available.  Some take this to mean they don't pay. One
> does not necessarily equate to the other.

Well - you just confirmed that it has not.

Arne

On 12/11/21 2:25 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 1:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 8:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>             Kind of like COBOL.  It is probably one of the
>>>> most used languages for serious business applications in use
>>>> today.  Some of the largest information systems in the world
>>>> are written in it.  Everybody is affected by its use every day.
>>>
>>> If an application:
>>> - is processing money
>>> - first version was written before 1995
>>> - has not been rewritten after 1995
>>> then there is a good chance that it is in Cobol.
>>
>> And, not just processing money.
>>
>>> And a lot of those applications are very important applications.
>>>
>>> But I am not so sure that it is one of the most used languages.
>>
>> I didn't say most used languages.  I limited myself to serious
>> business.  There is no COBOL version of Candy Crush.
>>
>>> The estimate is that Cobol is about 200 billion out of 3 trillion lines
>>> of code (7%). And based on hiring statistics it looks like Cobol
>>> work is like 1% of development work being done.
>>
>> Many of the times those hiring statistics are compiled by thge
>> people trying to kill COBOL.
>
> I am very skeptical about such a conspiracy theory.

Not a conspiracy theory. A lot of the polls done today have a
pre-desired conclusion and they are made to fit it. I point
this out to pollsters on Indeed all the time. It's like asking
"Yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?" :-)

>
>>                            I have watched the number of COBOL
>> jobs publicly advertised rise by  more than 1000% in the past
>> 5-10 years.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> At the big job sites the number of Cobol jobs has decreased by
> 2/3 the last 15 years.

Based on what numbers? 15 years ago Indeed would list maybe 10
or 15. Just did a search for COBOL: Page 1 of 2,462 jobs.
Even if half of them are bogus it's still a lot.

>
>>                   I have followed and even been involved with some of
>> the largest COBOL users and watched their hiring practices. Believe it
>> or not, not everyone hires thru Indeed, Monster or Dice.
>
> Not everyone.
>
> But assuming that Cobol is many times more required in the total
> job market than there seems like wishful thinking from someone that
> likes Cobol.

Or someone who has noit drunk the koolaid and is trying to enlighten
people to something that is being hidden. Regardless of the reason.

>
>>> And all the largest systems are distributed. They use
>>> Hadoop, Cassandra, Kafka etc.. Traditional technologies
>>> does simply not scale to that level.
>>
>> You wanna bet?  While some of the frontend stuff has mofrated to
>> the typical web crap the IRS for example is still a Unisys OS2200
>> shop with the code being mostly Legacy ACOB carried forward from
>> its origination on a UNIVAC 1100.
>
> Yes. And that system may have been a big system 30 years ago.

The US IRS is one of the biggest ISes in the world. Large enough
that some of the biggest contracting companies in the United States
looked at an RFP to replace it and said it probably couldn't be
done. And so it is still written mostly in COBOL running on Unisys
OS2200.

>
> But today large systems are NNN/NNNN nodes, NNNN CPU's, N/NN TB memory
> and N PB disk.

In what way does that contradict what I said above? Or are you one
of those people who think IBM Mainframe still means 360/40.

bill

On 12/11/21 3:23 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/11/2021 1:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> If there were then the salaries for Cobol programmer would
>>> sky rocket.
>>
>> COBOL programmers have already been receiving 6 figure salaries.
>> the biggest reason for the lack of publicly viewable job offerings
>> has more to do with job stability than lack of jobs.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Defense Finance and Accounting Service
>>
>> Salary
>> $92,914 - $120,789 per year
>>
>> "Use Integrated Database Management System (IDMS), Common Business
>> Oriented Language (COBOL), and Job Control Language (JCL) in a
>> mainframe environment to design software for Payroll Systems used
>> by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service."
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This announcement or similar ones has been running almost constantly
>> for as long as I have been following the the business.  More than 20
>> years.
>
> The above snippet does not say whether it is 0/5/10/20 years of
> experienced they are looking for or whether it is in New York/Boston
> /Seattle/San Francisco/Mountain View or Kansas/Arkansas
> /Missouri/Alabama they are looking

I didn't post the whole thing. In typical government form it is
several pages long with most of it being boilerplate. DFAS is in
Indiana (which is why I never applied for a position.) Experience
would be evaluated from your resume. But minimum starting salary
is still $95K. I would be happy with that. How much are VMS
programmers making these days?

>
> So it is hard to say whether it is a great salary or a
> crap salary.
>
> But it is not a sky rocket salary.

Seriously? I just took a quick look at Java Programmers on Indeed.
Most of the jobs are for half of that. And a lot of those were in
NYC where a 1 bedroom apartment starts at $2000 a month.

After being out of the COBOL market for 30 years I took a gig back in
2012. I was getting $75K. Not bad for someone who's experience was
that far out of date. I left that job for a position as a Unix Sys
Admin for which my experience was current. It paid about $10K less.

>
>>> It has not.
>>
>> Most of the places that employ COBOL programmers do not make salary
>> information available.  Some take this to mean they don't pay. One
>> does not necessarily equate to the other.
>
> Well - you just confirmed that it has not.
>

Don't understand this one.

bill

Brian,
I tried to reply to your email but your system refused it for reasons
I can't fathom. Sorry. I didn't ignore you.

bill