On 2022-08-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/2022 12:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Of course at the level where the decisions are made (and the auditors
>> contracted) your demand for VMS knowledgeable auditors is just more
>> ammunition to throw VMS out the door and go with something more in line
>> with modern business practice.
>
> Total bullshit!
>
> I'd demand the same expertise of those auditing Unix, Linux, WEENDOZE, and
> anything else. Anything else is just total nonsense.
>
> I have no idea of what you refer to as "modern business practice". Perhaps you
> refer to "total nonsense"?
>
> Lot of that coming from you these days ...
>

Bill is correct (and so was Jan-Erik when he made the same kind of comments).

VMS has to adapt to the _current_ needs of the business or it dies.

The business does _NOT_ adapt to the needs of VMS.

Anyone thinking otherwise is still wrongly stuck in the VMS mindset
of 30 years ago.

VMS is no longer a mainstream operating system like it was back in
those days and it can no longer _set_ the rules. It has to follow the
rules that others lay down, and has to be _able_ to follow those rules,
or the date those VMS systems are decommissioned just got a _lot_ closer.

Simon.

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

On 8/22/2022 2:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-08-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/2022 12:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> Of course at the level where the decisions are made (and the auditors
>>> contracted) your demand for VMS knowledgeable auditors is just more
>>> ammunition to throw VMS out the door and go with something more in line
>>> with modern business practice.
>>
>> Total bullshit!
>>
>> I'd demand the same expertise of those auditing Unix, Linux, WEENDOZE, and
>> anything else. Anything else is just total nonsense.
>>
>> I have no idea of what you refer to as "modern business practice". Perhaps you
>> refer to "total nonsense"?
>>
>> Lot of that coming from you these days ...
>>
>
> Bill is correct (and so was Jan-Erik when he made the same kind of comments).
>
> VMS has to adapt to the _current_ needs of the business or it dies.

VMS doesn't do anything, but what it is. It is the USERS who will decide
whether to use VMS, or not, and if they have any sense, they will decide based
upon their needs.

As for auditors, if they are not competent, then they should be ignored, as in
fired. Does anybody really want incompetents to tell them how to run their
business? Any that do won't be in business long.

> The business does _NOT_ adapt to the needs of VMS.

Totally correct, nor should it adapt to the likes of SAP and such. If VMS meets
the business needs, then the business will use VMS, otherwise not.

> Anyone thinking otherwise is still wrongly stuck in the VMS mindset
> of 30 years ago.
>
> VMS is no longer a mainstream operating system like it was back in
> those days and it can no longer _set_ the rules. It has to follow the
> rules that others lay down, and has to be _able_ to follow those rules,
> or the date those VMS systems are decommissioned just got a _lot_ closer.

VMS never set any rules. VMS provided needed services, and those who liked the
services used VMS.

You are not making a lot of sense.

--
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 2022-08-22, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/2022 2:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Anyone thinking otherwise is still wrongly stuck in the VMS mindset
>> of 30 years ago.
>>
>> VMS is no longer a mainstream operating system like it was back in
>> those days and it can no longer _set_ the rules. It has to follow the
>> rules that others lay down, and has to be _able_ to follow those rules,
>> or the date those VMS systems are decommissioned just got a _lot_ closer.
>
> VMS never set any rules. VMS provided needed services, and those who liked the
> services used VMS.
>
> You are not making a lot of sense.
>

I am making a lot of sense, but your clear lack of exposure to the
larger world outside of VMS means you clearly don't understand what
I am saying.

Simon.

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

In article <te0iaj$2nsd1$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 8/22/2022 2:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2022 12:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> Of course at the level where the decisions are made (and the auditors
>>>> contracted) your demand for VMS knowledgeable auditors is just more
>>>> ammunition to throw VMS out the door and go with something more in line
>>>> with modern business practice.
>>>
>>> Total bullshit!
>>>
>>> I'd demand the same expertise of those auditing Unix, Linux, WEENDOZE, and
>>> anything else. Anything else is just total nonsense.
>>>
>>> I have no idea of what you refer to as "modern business practice". Perhaps you
>>> refer to "total nonsense"?
>>>
>>> Lot of that coming from you these days ...
>>>
>>
>> Bill is correct (and so was Jan-Erik when he made the same kind of comments).
>>
>> VMS has to adapt to the _current_ needs of the business or it dies.
>
>VMS doesn't do anything, but what it is. It is the USERS who will decide
>whether to use VMS, or not, and if they have any sense, they will decide based
>upon their needs.

Yes. And one of their needs is available, qualified auditors.
If you can't find those, you can't audit your spiffy VMS system.

>As for auditors, if they are not competent, then they should be ignored, as in
>fired. Does anybody really want incompetents to tell them how to run their
>business? Any that do won't be in business long.

Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.

>> The business does _NOT_ adapt to the needs of VMS.
>
>Totally correct, nor should it adapt to the likes of SAP and such. If VMS meets
>the business needs, then the business will use VMS, otherwise not.

Part of the business need is finding auditors qualified to audit
the system. There are many fewer of these than there are for
other systems.

>> Anyone thinking otherwise is still wrongly stuck in the VMS mindset
>> of 30 years ago.
>>
>> VMS is no longer a mainstream operating system like it was back in
>> those days and it can no longer _set_ the rules. It has to follow the
>> rules that others lay down, and has to be _able_ to follow those rules,
>> or the date those VMS systems are decommissioned just got a _lot_ closer.
>
>VMS never set any rules. VMS provided needed services, and those who liked the
>services used VMS.

This is simplistic. It's not just services, it's an entire
ecosystem.

>You are not making a lot of sense.

Physician, heal thyself!

- Dan C.

On 8/24/2022 6:41 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <te0iaj$2nsd1$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2022 2:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2022 12:43 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> Of course at the level where the decisions are made (and the auditors
>>>>> contracted) your demand for VMS knowledgeable auditors is just more
>>>>> ammunition to throw VMS out the door and go with something more in line
>>>>> with modern business practice.
>>>>
>>>> Total bullshit!
>>>>
>>>> I'd demand the same expertise of those auditing Unix, Linux, WEENDOZE, and
>>>> anything else. Anything else is just total nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea of what you refer to as "modern business practice". Perhaps you
>>>> refer to "total nonsense"?
>>>>
>>>> Lot of that coming from you these days ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bill is correct (and so was Jan-Erik when he made the same kind of comments).
>>>
>>> VMS has to adapt to the _current_ needs of the business or it dies.
>>
>> VMS doesn't do anything, but what it is. It is the USERS who will decide
>> whether to use VMS, or not, and if they have any sense, they will decide based
>> upon their needs.
>
> Yes. And one of their needs is available, qualified auditors.

Good luck on finding even one ...

> If you can't find those, you can't audit your spiffy VMS system.

I fail to see where the requirement to audit any system comes from. Who ordered
this? Is it actually valid? Humans come up with strange ideas. Maybe it was
those who want to charge for auditing that came up with the idea?

>> As for auditors, if they are not competent, then they should be ignored, as in
>> fired. Does anybody really want incompetents to tell them how to run their
>> business? Any that do won't be in business long.
>
> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.

Then don't hire any ...

>>> The business does _NOT_ adapt to the needs of VMS.
>>
>> Totally correct, nor should it adapt to the likes of SAP and such. If VMS meets
>> the business needs, then the business will use VMS, otherwise not.
>
> Part of the business need is finding auditors qualified to audit
> the system. There are many fewer of these than there are for
> other systems.

I still don't understand where this requirement comes from? Potential auditors?

>>> Anyone thinking otherwise is still wrongly stuck in the VMS mindset
>>> of 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> VMS is no longer a mainstream operating system like it was back in
>>> those days and it can no longer _set_ the rules. It has to follow the
>>> rules that others lay down, and has to be _able_ to follow those rules,
>>> or the date those VMS systems are decommissioned just got a _lot_ closer.
>>
>> VMS never set any rules. VMS provided needed services, and those who liked the
>> services used VMS.
>
> This is simplistic. It's not just services, it's an entire
> ecosystem.

Not sure what that means ...

>> You are not making a lot of sense.
>
> Physician, heal thyself!

Question is, am I the one needing healing ...

--
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

Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:

>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>
> Then don't hire any ...

Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.

In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.

As an example, EPA can send auditors to check that your internal
process for emission measurement and logging is handled correctly.

They can even arrive unannounced asking to see the actual database
records and the items currently stored in the internal audit process.
Including user lists of those having access to the internal audit functions.

It is nothing you can say no to if you want to sell products to USA.

And this is not any auditors hired by yourself.

On 2022-08-24, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>
>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>
>> Then don't hire any ...
>
> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>
> In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
> It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.
>

This is what David seems unwilling to understand (deliberately?) even
though it has been explained to him multiple times.

In the vast majority of cases, you don't have any control or authority
over the auditors who just turned up to audit your systems and procedures.

Simon.

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

On 8/24/2022 12:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>
>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>
>> Then don't hire any ...
>
> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.

Ok, I'll explain a bit ...

> In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
> It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.

If so, then it is the problem of those doing the hiring, I'm Ok with that. It
is also their problem to insure they get valid results. What if the audit
report is unfovorable to you, and it is biased, unfair, wrong?

> As an example, EPA can send auditors to check that your internal
> process for emission measurement and logging is handled correctly.

That is a good thing, if the auditors are competent. Perhaps are. But if not,
they can hurt your business, and it's outside of your control.

Back to hiring auditors. I may have mentioned this before.

A company that I'm aware of hired auditors to audit their IT systems. Seems
that is required for business insurance. (Note: insurance is another con game.)

According to auditors:

Can't use VMS, it's old, not any good any more. Ditto for apps written in Basic
(old). Refuses to audit VMS apps.
Offers an introduction to an app "in the cloud", ie; we'll help you replace your
IT systems.
The referral is to a wholly owned by the auditors company.
About $5M later, new system doesn't do the job.
Most likely it will get to lawyers (people who live on other people's money).

Doesn't affect me, but, I just do not like dishonest people.

--
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

Den 2022-08-24 kl. 19:21, skrev Dave Froble:

> I may have mentioned this before.

There is one point where you are right! :-)

>
> A company that I'm aware of...

One failed example doesn't change how it works in general.

On 8/24/2022 1:15 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-08-24, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>>
>>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>>
>>> Then don't hire any ...
>>
>> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>>
>> In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
>> It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.
>>
>
> This is what David seems unwilling to understand (deliberately?) even
> though it has been explained to him multiple times.
>
> In the vast majority of cases, you don't have any control or authority
> over the auditors who just turned up to audit your systems and procedures.
>
> Simon.
>

Would not opening the door be any such control?

If deciding to open the door, should not those being audited demand some
control, including demanding competence?

Nor am I commenting on such a case, if the auditors work for someone else, you
can open the door, or not, and it is the job of those hiring the auditors as to
whether they are competent.

But that is not always the case.

Should a company wish to audit their procedures, should not that company then
demand some competence? If they can not find competence, should they then just
move ahead with incompetence?

--
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 8/24/2022 2:18 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/24/2022 1:15 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-24, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>>>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>>>
>>>> Then don't hire any ...
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>>>
>>> In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
>>> It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.
>>>
>>
>> This is what David seems unwilling to understand (deliberately?) even
>> though it has been explained to him multiple times.
>>
>> In the vast majority of cases, you don't have any control or authority
>> over the auditors who just turned up to audit your systems and
>> procedures.
>
> Would not opening the door be any such control?
>
> If deciding to open the door, should not those being audited demand some
> control, including demanding competence?
>
> Nor am I commenting on such a case, if the auditors work for someone
> else, you can open the door, or not, and it is the job of those hiring
> the auditors as to whether they are competent.

If the audit is driven by the government then it may be difficult
to keep them out.

But in other cases you can surely deny them access. And then you
will get a FAILED grade (just like for doping control then
not accepting control will be considered equivalent to failure). And
then some or all of your business may be stopped due to failing the
audit.

> But that is not always the case.
>
> Should a company wish to audit their procedures, should not that company
> then demand some competence?  If they can not find competence, should
> they then just move ahead with incompetence?

If it is a voluntary self ordered audit you can pick the auditor and
picking someone with appropriate skills certainly makes sense.

Arne

On 8/24/2022 1:21 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> Back to hiring auditors.  I may have mentioned this before.
>
> A company that I'm aware of hired auditors to audit their IT systems.
> Seems that is required for business insurance.  (Note: insurance is
> another con game.)
>
> According to auditors:
>
> Can't use VMS, it's old, not any good any more.  Ditto for apps written
> in Basic (old).  Refuses to audit VMS apps.
> Offers an introduction to an app "in the cloud", ie; we'll help you
> replace your IT systems.
> The referral is to a wholly owned by the auditors company.
> About $5M later, new system doesn't do the job.
> Most likely it will get to lawyers (people who live on other people's
> money).
>
> Doesn't affect me, but, I just do not like dishonest people.

You have told the story before.

It is definitely not good audit practice.

In general auditors should not be selling other services to
the company.

That was one of the lessons learned from Enron.

Arne

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 4:32:27 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/24/2022 1:21 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > Back to hiring auditors. I may have mentioned this before.
> >
> > A company that I'm aware of hired auditors to audit their IT systems.
> > Seems that is required for business insurance. (Note: insurance is
> > another con game.)
> >
> > According to auditors:
> >
> > Can't use VMS, it's old, not any good any more. Ditto for apps written
> > in Basic (old). Refuses to audit VMS apps.
> > Offers an introduction to an app "in the cloud", ie; we'll help you
> > replace your IT systems.
> > The referral is to a wholly owned by the auditors company.
> > About $5M later, new system doesn't do the job.
> > Most likely it will get to lawyers (people who live on other people's
> > money).
> >
> > Doesn't affect me, but, I just do not like dishonest people.
> You have told the story before.
>
> It is definitely not good audit practice.
>
> In general auditors should not be selling other services to
> the company.
>
> That was one of the lessons learned from Enron.
>
> Arne

Dealing with auditors is somewhat less than fun. Having dealt with auditors and inspectors for software in the medical field, it can be trying to say the least. I believe that I spent most of the time explaining why vulnerabilities in Windows did not apply to the OpenVMS system.

I even had someone try to tell us that we had to test every existing terminal emulator because of PHI that was displayed (not going to happen).
Long day, but the inspector left satisfied that all was within compliance guidelines.

On 2022-08-24, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/2022 1:15 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> In the vast majority of cases, you don't have any control or authority
>> over the auditors who just turned up to audit your systems and procedures.
>>
>
> Would not opening the door be any such control?
>

That is certainly one option. In the UK, if you do that, the next document
the person doing that would probably be served with is called a P45.

I don't know what that document is called in other countries.

Simon.

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

In article <te7ros$3la6p$1@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

> That is certainly one option. In the UK, if you do that, the next
> document the person doing that would probably be served with is
> called a P45.
>
> I don't know what that document is called in other countries.

The usual US term is "pink slip".

John

On 2022-08-25, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <te7ros$3la6p$1@dont-email.me>,
> clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>
>> That is certainly one option. In the UK, if you do that, the next
>> document the person doing that would probably be served with is
>> called a P45.
>>
>> I don't know what that document is called in other countries.
>
> The usual US term is "pink slip".
>

Thank you. I've heard that term before, but wasn't sure of the context.

Simon.

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

Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/2022 12:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>>
>>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>>
>>> Then don't hire any ...
>>
>> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>
> Ok, I'll explain a bit ...
>
> A company that I'm aware of hired auditors to audit their IT systems. Seems
> that is required for business insurance. (Note: insurance is another con game.)
>
> According to auditors:
>
> Can't use VMS, it's old, not any good any more. Ditto for apps written in Basic
> (old). Refuses to audit VMS apps.

Two red flags.

> Offers an introduction to an app "in the cloud", ie; we'll help you replace your
> IT systems.
> The referral is to a wholly owned by the auditors company.
> About $5M later, new system doesn't do the job.

Are you sure they hired auditors and not sales weasels masquerading as such?
Because it sure sounds like the latter. And depending on the business,
cloud services can be particularly problematic wrt to e.g. data governance.

Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/2022 1:15 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-24, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>>>
>>>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>>>
>>>> Then don't hire any ...
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>>>
>>> In most cases it is not you that is audited that hires the auditors.
>>> It is your customer, your insurance company or maybe some state agency.
>>>
>>
>> This is what David seems unwilling to understand (deliberately?) even
>> though it has been explained to him multiple times.
>>
>> In the vast majority of cases, you don't have any control or authority
>> over the auditors who just turned up to audit your systems and procedures.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Would not opening the door be any such control?

You can always tell the auditors to go away, assuming you are willing
to accept the consequences (e.g. no longer selling in specific markets
or to specific customers).

> If deciding to open the door, should not those being audited demand some
> control, including demanding competence?

Depending on exactly what the purpose of the audit is, knowledge of
the OS used on your systems might not be relevant.

And it tends to be in the best interest of whoever hired the auditors
that said auditors be competent, lest their incompetence blows up
into their customers face (e.g. hiring a financial auditing firm
known for their book cooking skills is _very_ likely to attract
the attention of the appropriate financial regulator).

Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

On 9/1/2022 4:27 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/24/2022 12:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2022-08-24 kl. 17:11, skrev Dave Froble:
>>>
>>>>> Good luck finding some who are familiar with VMS.
>>>>
>>>> Then don't hire any ...
>>>
>>> Why are you so fixed with this "hiring" of auditors.
>>
>> Ok, I'll explain a bit ...
>>
>> A company that I'm aware of hired auditors to audit their IT systems. Seems
>> that is required for business insurance. (Note: insurance is another con game.)
>>
>> According to auditors:
>>
>> Can't use VMS, it's old, not any good any more. Ditto for apps written in Basic
>> (old). Refuses to audit VMS apps.
>
> Two red flags.
>
>> Offers an introduction to an app "in the cloud", ie; we'll help you replace your
>> IT systems.
>> The referral is to a wholly owned by the auditors company.
>> About $5M later, new system doesn't do the job.
>
> Are you sure they hired auditors and not sales weasels masquerading as such?

Ya know, that's a pretty good way to put 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