From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost-comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...
--
Chris

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 8/29/2025 11:01 AM, Chris Townley wrote:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost- comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

But not bad assumptions.

I would summarize the numbers as:
- it cost 500-700 K$ per year to maintain app no matter
platform
- it would cost 300 K$ to migrate 1:1 from VMS Itanium to VMS x86-64
- it would cost 3 M$ to migrate from Cobol/VMS
to common tech stack/Linux
which respectively:
- is irrelevant for the conclusion
- is somewhere in the realistic to slightly optimistic range
- is very optimistic for 1 MLOC (I would have said 10-20 M$!!)

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

The downside is that it is 1:1 so still Cobol, Rdb and
DECForms.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 8/29/2025 11:33 AM, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

On 8/29/2025 11:01 AM, Chris Townley wrote:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost- comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

But not bad assumptions.

I would summarize the numbers as:
- it cost 500-700 K$ per year to maintain app no matter
-a platform
- it would cost 300 K$ to migrate 1:1 from VMS Itanium to VMS x86-64
- it would cost 3 M$ to migrate from Cobol/VMS
-a to common tech stack/Linux
which respectively:
- is irrelevant for the conclusion
- is somewhere in the realistic to slightly optimistic range
- is very optimistic for 1 MLOC (I would have said 10-20 M$!!)

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

The downside is that it is 1:1 so still Cobol, Rdb and
DECForms.

Why do you think migrating COBOL would be so difficult and expensive.
I would expect most of the other languages, which are very likely to
be used in the VMS environment, would be much more of a task migrating
away from VMS. Assuming, of course, that one has no choice but to
migrate away from VMS.

While I have never tried a MLOC program :-) just for fun I have taken
many COBOL programs from mainframe and mini environments and moved them
to Unix/Linux (my preference is Unix) environments with minimal mod-
ification. Mostly just things related to file system access as file
naming conventions vary so much across the IT world.

bill


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 8/29/2025 12:24 PM, bill wrote:

On 8/29/2025 11:33 AM, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

On 8/29/2025 11:01 AM, Chris Townley wrote:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-
cost- comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

But not bad assumptions.

I would summarize the numbers as:
- it cost 500-700 K$ per year to maintain app no matter
-a-a platform
- it would cost 300 K$ to migrate 1:1 from VMS Itanium to VMS x86-64
- it would cost 3 M$ to migrate from Cobol/VMS
-a-a to common tech stack/Linux
which respectively:
- is irrelevant for the conclusion
- is somewhere in the realistic to slightly optimistic range
- is very optimistic for 1 MLOC (I would have said 10-20 M$!!)

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

The downside is that it is 1:1 so still Cobol, Rdb and
DECForms.

Why do you think migrating COBOL would be so difficult and expensive.
I would expect most of the other languages, which are very likely to
be used in the VMS environment, would be much more of a task migrating
away from VMS.-a Assuming, of course, that one has no choice but to
migrate away from VMS.

While I have never tried a MLOC program :-)-a just for fun I have taken
many COBOL programs from mainframe and mini environments and moved them
to Unix/Linux (my preference is Unix) environments with minimal mod- ification.-a Mostly just things related to file system access as file
naming conventions vary so much across the IT world.

If you read the doc, then you will see that the the migration to
Linux is not a migration to Cobol/Linux, but a migration to
a JavaScript for frontend and Java/C# backend on Linux. Not a single
line of code will be reused in that model.

Cobol/Linux would be a third option.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2025-08-29, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-08-29, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

I think that was a risk 3-5 years ago.

If VSI had not gotten VMS x86-64 out, then VMS and VSI would
have been a dead end.

But they got VMS x86-64 including compilers etc..

Unless VSI does something crazy then it is difficult to see
how they could go down in near or mid term.

(long term anything is possible)

number employees < annual revenue / average employee cost

will keep them over water.

More customer / existing customers buying more
from VSI will enable more VMS development.

And less will mean less.

Arne




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-08-29, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done. What if a huge rock was about to break the planet into pieces? Why then bother
about anything? Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle 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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-08-29, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

There is absolutely no doubt that VMS x86-64 is the lowest
cost solution.

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

What if a huge rock was about to break the planet into pieces? Why then bother
about anything?

It all comes down to probabilities. The probability that an
asteroid will obliterate life on earth any time soon is very,
very low. On the other hand, the probability that the Sun will
rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow is very, very
high.

Thus, decision paralysis in the face of uncertainly of giant
space rocks breaking the planet apart is unreasonable, as that's
a very low-risk concern. Similarly, making a decision
predicated on a believe that the earth will suddenly reverse the
direction of spin on its axis is very high risk, as it is even
more unlikely that that will happen.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

Look: I like VMS. I'm glad that it's still a going concern.
But the sad reality is that it has a very small niche market and
that market is shrinking. Getting mad at people pointing that
out isn't helping keep it available long term.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2025-09-04, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

I would go even further and say that perception of reality _IS_ reality
when it comes to a manager making a decision that they will be held
accountable for if it goes wrong.

IOW, the manager will make a decision based on what they perceive as
reality which is Linux (vast ecosystem so they can say I was only
following the market) versus VMS (very small ecosystem, depends on
one vendor, not the mainstream option) if all other things are equal (availability of products, robustness, reliability, security, etc).

It doesn't matter if the actual reality in terms of risks to the
company is different; it only matters that the manager perceives
that their model of reality _is_ reality.

VSI need to provide policies/business models/etc that somehow make
the small ecosystem VMS to appear to be seen as the less risky option
when compared to the other options and to make these very general and
very widely known options. It's also not enough for VMS to have the
_same_ risk as the other mainstream options; it needs to be seen as
the lower risk.

Note that I said risks, not costs.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109cm7h$1ul2v$1@dont-email.me>, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP says...

On 2025-09-04, Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD. >>
Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

I would go even further and say that perception of reality _IS_ reality
when it comes to a manager making a decision that they will be held accountable for if it goes wrong.

IOW, the manager will make a decision based on what they perceive as
reality which is Linux (vast ecosystem so they can say I was only
following the market) versus VMS (very small ecosystem, depends on
one vendor, not the mainstream option) if all other things are equal (availability of products, robustness, reliability, security, etc).

It doesn't matter if the actual reality in terms of risks to the
company is different; it only matters that the manager perceives
that their model of reality _is_ reality.

VSI need to provide policies/business models/etc that somehow make
the small ecosystem VMS to appear to be seen as the less risky option
when compared to the other options and to make these very general and
very widely known options. It's also not enough for VMS to have the
_same_ risk as the other mainstream options; it needs to be seen as
the lower risk.

I can't imagine how they'd go about making it appear less risky than
Linux. With enough work they might be able to get into the same ballpark
as (Open)Solaris or BSD though.

But VSI instead seems more interested in *increasing* the risk profile
of OpenVMS by restricting access further and so limiting community size
and participation.

I'm sure everyone here has already seen where this path leads; I don't
see why OpenVMS should avoid the same fate as so many proprietary unix
in the long term. Probably the thing thats saved it so far is the more difficult migration path, but that doesn't guarantee a future and it
makes dealing with an EOL announcement much harder for anyone still on
the platform when it inevitably arrives.

At a minimum I think they'd have to open source the whole thing in order
to improve their risk profile in any meaningful way. As long as VSI are
the only ones that can issue new releases, OpenVMS dies with VSI and
thats a very significant risk mainstream options simply do not have.

I guess some kind of *guarantee* that the whole thing will be open
sourced in a buildable state the event VSI can no longer sell licenses
might also help, but not as much as open sourcing it earlier while the
OpenVMS ecosystem is in a healthier state.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

No need for any extensive risk analysis.

Arne


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/4/2025 8:08 PM, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

No need for any extensive risk analysis.

There is a real risk for VMS long term.

There is some attrition among existing VMS customers.

And I assume there are practically no new VMS customers.

That means that the revenue stream will decline over time.

VSI can partly compensate for that by selling more services
(consulting) to existing customers. Which I think they are
trying to do.

But if the revenue stream keeps declining, then new development
(enhancements) will decrease towards nothing.

This is not something that will happen fast. We are talking
10-20-30 years out.

But VSI needs to get new VMS customers, if VMS is to survive long term.

It is not something that should concern VMS customers that
much. The process is so slow that they will have plenty of time
to migrate off VMS if needed.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 20:08:07 -0400, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

That means that just mediocre business abilities will prevent VSI from
going bust.

If they can stay in business with just a mediocre product, IrCOm not sure thatrCOs actually a good sign ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD. >>>
Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

That's true, but that's not the point. As Simon pointed out, it
is the perception that matters, not just the reality.

And further, we're talking about relative risk here: while it
may not feel particularly risky at present to rely on VSI, it is
undeniable that it is _more_ risky than the alternatives.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

While VSI _does_ have a revenue stream, it's very small, and it
is unclear how it is spread across customers: it could be one or
two large customers that are subsidizing the rest; if one of
those large customers migrates off of VMS, that could be
catastrophic for the organization. Caveat that I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but that's also part of the
point: it's unclear, and therefore, the risk is greater. That
is, having some metric of revenue diversification for a vendor
is an essential part of doing adequate risk analysis.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

I don't think anyone is worried about VSI making a bad pivot.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly worried about
_VSI_ doing anything to screw things up themselves. It's rather
worry that the market around them can change subtly but in ways
that are significant vis VMS's customer base, and thus VSI's
overall health.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

No need for any extensive risk analysis.

This assertion is professionally irresponsible.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD. >>>>
Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it". >>>

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

That's true, but that's not the point. As Simon pointed out, it
is the perception that matters, not just the reality.

And further, we're talking about relative risk here: while it
may not feel particularly risky at present to rely on VSI, it is
undeniable that it is _more_ risky than the alternatives.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

While VSI _does_ have a revenue stream, it's very small, and it
is unclear how it is spread across customers: it could be one or
two large customers that are subsidizing the rest; if one of
those large customers migrates off of VMS, that could be
catastrophic for the organization. Caveat that I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but that's also part of the
point: it's unclear, and therefore, the risk is greater. That
is, having some metric of revenue diversification for a vendor
is an essential part of doing adequate risk analysis.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

I don't think anyone is worried about VSI making a bad pivot.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly worried about
_VSI_ doing anything to screw things up themselves. It's rather
worry that the market around them can change subtly but in ways
that are significant vis VMS's customer base, and thus VSI's
overall health.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

Arne


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

You have completely and utterly missed the point Arne.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks.
It doesn't matter what I think.

The only thing that matters is what the manager making the decision
thinks, what their perceived model of reality is when it comes to
VSI versus the alternatives, and which decision is less likely to
cause them problems later down the road.

They are not emotionally involved with VMS, but they do have to
make a decision about which path they take that they perceive as less
risky to them and the company they work for.

You talk above about VSI management handling/addressing risks if they materialise at some point in the future. By that point, it's way too
late. VSI should be proactively finding ways to make the VSI option
appear to be the less risky option and building a pre-emptive model
of comfort around the VSI option in the minds of the decision makers.

The risk, as perceived by the people making a decision, is going to be
a dominant factor in the decision that an emotionally detached manager
is going to make.

And once again, I am talking about risks, not costs. After all, there
is still a major market for z/OS in spite of the cheaper options because
z/OS is perceived to be the less risky option to those companies using it.

That's where VSI needs to be in the minds of the decision makers.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/5/2025 9:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

You have completely and utterly missed the point Arne.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks.
It doesn't matter what I think.

The only thing that matters is what the manager making the decision
thinks, what their perceived model of reality is when it comes to
VSI versus the alternatives, and which decision is less likely to
cause them problems later down the road.

They are not emotionally involved with VMS, but they do have to
make a decision about which path they take that they perceive as less
risky to them and the company they work for.

You talk above about VSI management handling/addressing risks if they materialise at some point in the future. By that point, it's way too
late. VSI should be proactively finding ways to make the VSI option
appear to be the less risky option and building a pre-emptive model
of comfort around the VSI option in the minds of the decision makers.

The risk, as perceived by the people making a decision, is going to be
a dominant factor in the decision that an emotionally detached manager
is going to make.

That makes it even easier.

Those making such decisions actually know about how to deal with risk.

No hand waving and the sky is falling down.

Analysis. What are the facts. What could happen. What could they
do if it happens. Would that be sufficient.

And VMS is not in bad shape risk wise. Short and mid term.

Arne






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109eob0$2ejin$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 9:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

You have completely and utterly missed the point Arne.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks.
It doesn't matter what I think.

The only thing that matters is what the manager making the decision
thinks, what their perceived model of reality is when it comes to
VSI versus the alternatives, and which decision is less likely to
cause them problems later down the road.

They are not emotionally involved with VMS, but they do have to
make a decision about which path they take that they perceive as less
risky to them and the company they work for.

You talk above about VSI management handling/addressing risks if they
materialise at some point in the future. By that point, it's way too
late. VSI should be proactively finding ways to make the VSI option
appear to be the less risky option and building a pre-emptive model
of comfort around the VSI option in the minds of the decision makers.

The risk, as perceived by the people making a decision, is going to be
a dominant factor in the decision that an emotionally detached manager
is going to make.

That makes it even easier.

Those making such decisions actually know about how to deal with risk.

No hand waving and the sky is falling down.

Analysis. What are the facts. What could happen. What could they
do if it happens. Would that be sufficient.

And VMS is not in bad shape risk wise. Short and mid term.

I don't think anyone is arguing that in the short (and possibly)
middle term there is a significant risk. But you yourself
acknowledged that the risks in the long term are there.

No one is running around suggesting the sky is falling. What
Simon (and I) are saying is that, for VMS to be considered a
viable long-term option, and not something to be migrated away
from in the next 5-10 or 15 years, these issues need to be
addressed.

That is not FUD; that is simply the truth.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109em8t$2dg49$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now
have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay
on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD. >>>>>
Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it". >>>>

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

That's true, but that's not the point. As Simon pointed out, it
is the perception that matters, not just the reality.

And further, we're talking about relative risk here: while it
may not feel particularly risky at present to rely on VSI, it is
undeniable that it is _more_ risky than the alternatives.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

While VSI _does_ have a revenue stream, it's very small, and it
is unclear how it is spread across customers: it could be one or
two large customers that are subsidizing the rest; if one of
those large customers migrates off of VMS, that could be
catastrophic for the organization. Caveat that I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but that's also part of the
point: it's unclear, and therefore, the risk is greater. That
is, having some metric of revenue diversification for a vendor
is an essential part of doing adequate risk analysis.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

I don't think anyone is worried about VSI making a bad pivot.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly worried about
_VSI_ doing anything to screw things up themselves. It's rather
worry that the market around them can change subtly but in ways
that are significant vis VMS's customer base, and thus VSI's
overall health.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

I think you should let Dave speak for himself.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

Please point to the place where these concerns are "covered in
detail in the thread". I submit that they were not.

The closest I can find is when you wrote something along the
lines of, "number employees < annual revenue / average employee
cost will keep them over water." But this fails to account for
how "annual revenue" can change and how quickly, and there is
insufficient data publicly available to make _any_ assumption
about that. "number of employees < annual revenue / average
employee cost" is what's really generic handwaving.

Note that you wrote the above immediately after writing, "(long
term anything is possible)", which is what I'm trying to point
out: if I'm making a decision for a system that I anticipate is
going to have a 15 year life span, VMS looks very risky indeed.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/5/2025 10:51 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109eob0$2ejin$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 9:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

You have completely and utterly missed the point Arne.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks.
It doesn't matter what I think.

The only thing that matters is what the manager making the decision
thinks, what their perceived model of reality is when it comes to
VSI versus the alternatives, and which decision is less likely to
cause them problems later down the road.

They are not emotionally involved with VMS, but they do have to
make a decision about which path they take that they perceive as less
risky to them and the company they work for.

You talk above about VSI management handling/addressing risks if they
materialise at some point in the future. By that point, it's way too
late. VSI should be proactively finding ways to make the VSI option
appear to be the less risky option and building a pre-emptive model
of comfort around the VSI option in the minds of the decision makers.

The risk, as perceived by the people making a decision, is going to be
a dominant factor in the decision that an emotionally detached manager
is going to make.

That makes it even easier.

Those making such decisions actually know about how to deal with risk.

No hand waving and the sky is falling down.

Analysis. What are the facts. What could happen. What could they
do if it happens. Would that be sufficient.

And VMS is not in bad shape risk wise. Short and mid term.

I don't think anyone is arguing that in the short (and possibly)
middle term there is a significant risk. But you yourself
acknowledged that the risks in the long term are there.

No one is running around suggesting the sky is falling. What
Simon (and I) are saying is that, for VMS to be considered a
viable long-term option, and not something to be migrated away
from in the next 5-10 or 15 years, these issues need to be
addressed.

Long term in IT regarding target technology is highly
uncertain.

There is definitely a risk for VMS in the 20+ years
time horizon.

But it does not really matter.

Nobody start a migration now due to a risk that far out. They
will have a significant risk of having to do multiple migrations
because they those the wrong migration the first time.

They have a decade to see where the IT world is going and
how it goes with VSI and VMS.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/5/2025 11:00 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109em8t$2dg49$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now >>>>>>> have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production
licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay >>>>>>> on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it". >>>>>

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

That's true, but that's not the point. As Simon pointed out, it
is the perception that matters, not just the reality.

And further, we're talking about relative risk here: while it
may not feel particularly risky at present to rely on VSI, it is
undeniable that it is _more_ risky than the alternatives.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

While VSI _does_ have a revenue stream, it's very small, and it
is unclear how it is spread across customers: it could be one or
two large customers that are subsidizing the rest; if one of
those large customers migrates off of VMS, that could be
catastrophic for the organization. Caveat that I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but that's also part of the
point: it's unclear, and therefore, the risk is greater. That
is, having some metric of revenue diversification for a vendor
is an essential part of doing adequate risk analysis.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

I don't think anyone is worried about VSI making a bad pivot.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly worried about
_VSI_ doing anything to screw things up themselves. It's rather
worry that the market around them can change subtly but in ways
that are significant vis VMS's customer base, and thus VSI's
overall health.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

I think you should let Dave speak for himself.

I did not speak for David. I was speaking for myself.

*I* think that what you wrote matches what David described.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

Please point to the place where these concerns are "covered in
detail in the thread". I submit that they were not.

The closest I can find is when you wrote something along the
lines of, "number employees < annual revenue / average employee
cost will keep them over water." But this fails to account for
how "annual revenue" can change and how quickly, and there is
insufficient data publicly available to make _any_ assumption
about that. "number of employees < annual revenue / average
employee cost" is what's really generic handwaving.

No that is a very simple business model that will prevent
VSI from going bust.

And VMS revenue stream is not that uncertain. We have
seen the decline rate over a couple of decades when
it was on a doomed platform. Now it is on a platform
with a future.

I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate
on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition
rate on a doomed platform.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109fa1s$2hamk$2@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajhoj) wrote:

I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate
on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition
rate on a doomed platform.

That is a reasonable assumption, but not an absolutely solid one. There
are plausible reasons why it could be otherwise:

One is simply management turnover. If a company has been continuing to
use VMS (but not expanding its use, while it seemed doomed), a new
manager, wanting to make their mark, might decide it's time to migrate
off VMS, irrespective of its future.

Also, now that VMS is not intrinsically doomed, management become willing
to think about it, rather than ignoring the problem for their own peace
of mind. At that point, they may decide it's time for a migration.

One-year commercial licenses, perversely, make that more likely. A year
is not enough time to migrate a complex system, starting from zero. If
there's a perceived risk of VSI going broke, then a migration plan needs
to be made and periodically updated. Once someone gets emotionally
invested in that plan, it's likely to get executed to remove a risk.

To maintain a niche in the industry, VMS needs to be demonstrably
superior to Linux in some way that matters to a reasonably large number
of potential customers. I don't know what that might be, but supporting
legacy customers doesn't last forever.

John
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109f9lv$2hamk$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 10:51 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109eob0$2ejin$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 9:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

You have completely and utterly missed the point Arne.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks.
It doesn't matter what I think.

The only thing that matters is what the manager making the decision
thinks, what their perceived model of reality is when it comes to
VSI versus the alternatives, and which decision is less likely to
cause them problems later down the road.

They are not emotionally involved with VMS, but they do have to
make a decision about which path they take that they perceive as less
risky to them and the company they work for.

You talk above about VSI management handling/addressing risks if they
materialise at some point in the future. By that point, it's way too
late. VSI should be proactively finding ways to make the VSI option
appear to be the less risky option and building a pre-emptive model
of comfort around the VSI option in the minds of the decision makers.

The risk, as perceived by the people making a decision, is going to be >>>> a dominant factor in the decision that an emotionally detached manager >>>> is going to make.

That makes it even easier.

Those making such decisions actually know about how to deal with risk.

No hand waving and the sky is falling down.

Analysis. What are the facts. What could happen. What could they
do if it happens. Would that be sufficient.

And VMS is not in bad shape risk wise. Short and mid term.

I don't think anyone is arguing that in the short (and possibly)
middle term there is a significant risk. But you yourself
acknowledged that the risks in the long term are there.

No one is running around suggesting the sky is falling. What
Simon (and I) are saying is that, for VMS to be considered a
viable long-term option, and not something to be migrated away
from in the next 5-10 or 15 years, these issues need to be
addressed.

Long term in IT regarding target technology is highly
uncertain.

Mmm, for some things yes, for others, no. The level of risk has
(in a lot of ways) gone way down over time. It's a safe bet
that Linux will still be running on machines in 20+ years. VMS?
Well, I'm not a betting man, but I think that's a much chancier
bet.

There is definitely a risk for VMS in the 20+ years
time horizon.

Yes.

But it does not really matter.

Disagree.

Nobody start a migration now due to a risk that far out. They
will have a significant risk of having to do multiple migrations
because they those the wrong migration the first time.

That's not the issue though, is it? All it takes is one large
customer to decide that they want to migrate off of VMS because
$reasons and and VSI's revenue could drop precipitously, causing
the equivalent of a bank run.

This could happen for any number of reasons that have,
themselves, nothing to do with VSI or VMS.

Your earlier assertion was that VSI was as stable as "most other
companies". I suppose that may be true in the sense that most
companies are walking a delicate tightrope of stability, but it
is simply untrue when compared to, say, IBM, Oracle, Dell, MSFT,
etc, let alone the Googles and so on of the world.

They have a decade to see where the IT world is going and
how it goes with VSI and VMS.

Well, right now, it's pretty clear where it's headed.

And you know what? That makes me sad, because as I said, I like
VMS and want to see it prosper. I'm not privy to the details of
what goes on inside of VSI, and so I recognize that I'm
operating without the benefit of a lot of information, but that
kind of uncertainy is what makes purchasing descision makers
wary.

If you think that's FUD, then I don't know what to tell you.
The weird thing is that you are similarly not privy to a lot of
those details.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109fa1s$2hamk$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 11:00 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109em8t$2dg49$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajh|+j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

This assumes of course that VSI does not go bust and that you now >>>>>>>> have to port away from VMS before your time-limited production >>>>>>>> licences expire.

That possibility may become the major factor in whether you stay >>>>>>>> on VMS or not.

Simon, if the world ran on "what ifs" and such, nothing would ever get done.

Risk analysis is a common and essential part of running a
business. Responsible folks across many different fields
reasonably ask "what if?" questions all the time as part of
doing their job, and plenty of stuff still gets done,
regardless.

Yes, there are possibilities, and VSI isn't the most secure
choice, but what is? Hate to break it to you, but you are spreading FUD.

Perhaps deal with "what is", and if that changes, then just "handle it".

It is not only reasonable to evaluate the risk tradeoffs
involved, I would argue that it is madatory for a responsible
professional. The best response

Reflexively shutting someone down by accusing them of spreading
FUD isn't useful when people raise legitimate concerns about the
future of VMS, and Simon raised a very legitimate concern: the
probability that VSI would go under and VMS disappear in a
flurry of lawsuits is much, much higher than the probability
that Linux is going to disappear any time in the next century.

Surely this must weigh on the minds of folks in charge of making
technology and purchasing decisions, and so dismissing those
concerns out of hand is not helpful. Instead, lobbying VSI to
address them and put in place assurances would be a more useful
response if one wants to keep seeing VMS available.

But at this point in time there really is no reason to believe
that VSI would go bust as described.

It has a revenue stream.

That's true, but that's not the point. As Simon pointed out, it
is the perception that matters, not just the reality.

And further, we're talking about relative risk here: while it
may not feel particularly risky at present to rely on VSI, it is
undeniable that it is _more_ risky than the alternatives.

VMS x86-64 and compilers and almost all layered products are
available for VMS x86-64. VMS does not have any huge "must have"
cost items lined up.

That means that just mediocre business abilities will
prevent VSI from going bust.

Just adjust development level to what the revenue stream
can support.

While VSI _does_ have a revenue stream, it's very small, and it
is unclear how it is spread across customers: it could be one or
two large customers that are subsidizing the rest; if one of
those large customers migrates off of VMS, that could be
catastrophic for the organization. Caveat that I don't know
whether that's the case or not, but that's also part of the
point: it's unclear, and therefore, the risk is greater. That
is, having some metric of revenue diversification for a vendor
is an essential part of doing adequate risk analysis.

Of course VSI management could do something totally
crazy - borrow 100 million and invest in an unknown
crypto currency or hire 200 engineers to make systemd
run on VMS or whatever.

But most companies would go bust if management do
sufficiently crazy stuff.

I don't think anyone is worried about VSI making a bad pivot.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly worried about
_VSI_ doing anything to screw things up themselves. It's rather
worry that the market around them can change subtly but in ways
that are significant vis VMS's customer base, and thus VSI's
overall health.

Bottom line is that at this time the risk of VSI
going bust is similar to most other companies.

Absolutely not. VSI is a small company with a small revenue
stream and a small (and ultimately decreasing) number of
customers. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different
than a large organization with a large and diverse revenue
stream spread across many customers. The VMS market is not
growing; we have no idea how diverse the existing customer
portfolio is. To assert that the risk profile is the same as
"most other companies" is simply untrue.

I think this is exactly what Dave was talking about.

I think you should let Dave speak for himself.

I did not speak for David. I was speaking for myself.

*I* think that what you wrote matches what David described.

Ok.

Very generic, "something could happen", lots of
handwaving.

Instead of looking at specifics, what risks there are
and whether VSI management can handle those if they
materialize.

Given that those topics are already covered in detail
in the thread then the generic something could happen
is indeed FUD.

Please point to the place where these concerns are "covered in
detail in the thread". I submit that they were not.

The closest I can find is when you wrote something along the
lines of, "number employees < annual revenue / average employee
cost will keep them over water." But this fails to account for
how "annual revenue" can change and how quickly, and there is
insufficient data publicly available to make _any_ assumption
about that. "number of employees < annual revenue / average
employee cost" is what's really generic handwaving.

No that is a very simple business model that will prevent
VSI from going bust.

s/simple/simplistic/

So where were "those topics [are] already covered in detail in
the thread"? There are no details there.

And VMS revenue stream is not that uncertain. We have
seen the decline rate over a couple of decades when
it was on a doomed platform. Now it is on a platform
with a future.

I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate
on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition
rate on a doomed platform.

What you don't consider is that there is insufficient
information available to actually assert that that future is
secure. It _may_ be that VSI's revenue stream is well balanced
across many customers. If so, great! All good.

But it _also_ may be that there are one or two large customers
accounting for the bulk of revenue and then a long tail of much
smaller customers. What sorts of commitments does VSI have (and
that they can discuss openly) from the large customers? Having
that information would go a long way towards reducing the sort
of risk I'm talking about.

Which, by the way, is very real and not just FUD: if you haven't
worked with sales folks who deal with people making purchasing
decisions and heard them talking about _this exact sort of
thing_ then I honestly question your experience to make these
kinds of statements, because I'll bet cookies to cake that VSI's
sales folks have and do have those discussions.

Dismissing the concerns out of hand without also acknowledging
that your assumptions are based on incomplete data doesn't
actually _help_ keep VMS in good shape, in fact it does the
opposite.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/7/2025 8:42 AM, John Dallman wrote:

In article <109fa1s$2hamk$2@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajh|+j) wrote:

I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate
on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition
rate on a doomed platform.

That is a reasonable assumption, but not an absolutely solid one. There
are plausible reasons why it could be otherwise:

One is simply management turnover. If a company has been continuing to
use VMS (but not expanding its use, while it seemed doomed), a new
manager, wanting to make their mark, might decide it's time to migrate
off VMS, irrespective of its future.

That may very well be how the attrition happen.

But it does not indicate that it would accelerate.

Also, now that VMS is not intrinsically doomed, management become willing
to think about it, rather than ignoring the problem for their own peace
of mind. At that point, they may decide it's time for a migration.

That seem a little far fetched for individual companies and
very far fetched as an industry trend.

One-year commercial licenses, perversely, make that more likely. A year
is not enough time to migrate a complex system, starting from zero. If there's a perceived risk of VSI going broke, then a migration plan needs
to be made and periodically updated. Once someone gets emotionally
invested in that plan, it's likely to get executed to remove a risk.

One year is way too little for a migration project.

My understanding (mostly based on what VSI has told the french when
getting grilled over licenses) is that companies have options:
* buy 1 year license
* buy 5 year license
* buy 5 year license and extend with 1 year every year
* buy a permanent license if they can argue that their business is
"nuclear power plant" critical

There has been a lot of talk about the new license model, but
it seems like there are options and if the customer talk to their
friendly VSI sales person, then they can find a suitable solution.

To maintain a niche in the industry, VMS needs to be demonstrably
superior to Linux in some way that matters to a reasonably large number
of potential customers. I don't know what that might be, but supporting legacy customers doesn't last forever.

Attrition among existing customers will always be greater than
zero, so long term they need new customers to stay in business.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <memo.20250907134201.8348B@jgd.cix.co.uk>,
John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

In article <109fa1s$2hamk$2@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajhoj) >wrote:

I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate
on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition
rate on a doomed platform.

That is a reasonable assumption, but not an absolutely solid one. There
are plausible reasons why it could be otherwise:

One is simply management turnover. If a company has been continuing to
use VMS (but not expanding its use, while it seemed doomed), a new
manager, wanting to make their mark, might decide it's time to migrate
off VMS, irrespective of its future.

Also, now that VMS is not intrinsically doomed, management become willing
to think about it, rather than ignoring the problem for their own peace
of mind. At that point, they may decide it's time for a migration.

Or, the organization may be adopting different technologies at
an accelerating rate, and decide that the incremental cost of
supporting VMS as a legacy one-off is no longer worthwhile. At
some point, you hit a tipping point and just move off of it.

Instead of being the platform of preference for ongoing
deployment, it is seen soley as a cost.

One-year commercial licenses, perversely, make that more likely. A year
is not enough time to migrate a complex system, starting from zero. If >there's a perceived risk of VSI going broke, then a migration plan needs
to be made and periodically updated. Once someone gets emotionally
invested in that plan, it's likely to get executed to remove a risk.

Additionally, as the VMS market share shrinks, and engineers and
system managers with expertise retire or move on, the support
cost _increases_. Why pay a premium for training and
educational support services when, at this point, knowing how to
effectively negotiate Linux (as only one example) is expected as
part of a table-stakes skillset?

Vis VMS specifically, this starts the climb up the far side of
the classic "bathtub curve" in software engineering (and other
types of engineering, for that matter): lack of knowledge leads
to lack of maintenance leads to lack of investment leads to
increasing unreliability until finally it's not worth it anymore
and the system is retired.

The hobbyist program helped with this somewhat. I get that the
support cost on the VSI side was high, with little observed
return, but I submit that shutting it off was a mistake. It may
have seen more useful uptake for x86.

To maintain a niche in the industry, VMS needs to be demonstrably
superior to Linux in some way that matters to a reasonably large number
of potential customers. I don't know what that might be, but supporting >legacy customers doesn't last forever.

I would argue that the VMS IO architecture lends itself much
more readily to supporting the sorts of asynchronous language
features and concurrent runtimes of modern languages like Rust
and Go, than POSIX-based systems (which have system interfaces
that are highly synchronous by design). Maybe it is notable
that the many of the AIO and real-time features added in POSIX
were actually inspired by VMS; despite being in the standard,
these remain poorly supported and don't interact well with the
existing (synchronous) facilities.

It would not surprise me at all if tail latency for network
services on VMS implemented using an event-driven asynchronous
architecture could be shown to have significantly lower
tail-latency at, say, the 95% or 99% percentile than Linux,
illumos, or BSD.

I imagine that VMS could have a home as an object of study in
advanced university setting, as well. The sad reality is that
the vast, vast majority of systems studied these days are based
on Unix-y style designs; this isn't bad per-se but has led to a
real monoculture of systems thinking, and an alternative would
be good. I don't know what shape that would take, per se, or
how VSI might use it to generate revenue, but it would give
exposure; recall that part of the way that Unix spread into
industry was via students who used it in university and graduate
programs and then brought it with them.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/7/2025 10:49 AM, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

On 9/7/2025 8:42 AM, John Dallman wrote:

One-year commercial licenses, perversely, make that more likely. A year
is not enough time to migrate a complex system, starting from zero. If
there's a perceived risk of VSI going broke, then a migration plan needs
to be made and periodically updated. Once someone gets emotionally
invested in that plan, it's likely to get executed to remove a risk.

One year is way too little for a migration project.

My understanding (mostly based on what VSI has told the french when
getting grilled over licenses) is that companies have options:
* buy 1 year license
* buy 5 year license
* buy 5 year license and extend with 1 year every year
* buy a permanent license if they can argue that their business is
-a "nuclear power plant" critical

There has been a lot of talk about the new license model, but
it seems like there are options and if the customer talk to their
friendly VSI sales person, then they can find a suitable solution.

And references.

https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license

<quote>
Having said the above, we do recognize that there are specific
situations that are so important to human health and wellness that even
the idea of an expiring O/S license in a critical situation would not be
the rCLRight ThingrCY to do. Therefore, to those customers who may have specific situations (i.e. nuclear plants, military armaments, local infrastructure projects, other key government agencies that protect
their citizens, etcrCa.), we will grant an exception to this policy and
allow VSI Perpetual licenses to be provided. The key VSI person who
reviews such matters for French OpenVMS customers is our European Sales Director, Mr. Adam Hoff-Nielsen. I would encourage any member of VMS Generations to engage with Mr. Hoff-Nielsen for such a discussion. We
truly want to provide solutions that make sense for both the customer
and VSI.
</quote>

https://www.vmsgenerations.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CR-rdv-31-janv-2023-EN.pdf

<quote>
A STEP FORWARD IN LICENSING PROCESS
Exclusive ! Adam has officially announced a major change in VSI's
licensing policy with the introduction of "renewable subscription"
licenses.
In this offer the customer subscribes to recurring 5-year subscriptions, signing a contract every 1, 2 or 3 years. The license keys issued at the beginning of each contract are valid for a period of 5 years.
Briefly, the duration is extended every year for 1 additional year.
Of course, a price increase is possible. The terms and conditions of
this offer
should be detailed soon by VSI. This new policy allows a customer to have
the insurance that his system will be able to operate with a valid
license key
and the industrial risk (sudden system shutdown) is reduced with a 5-year window visibility.
</quote>

And again: if someone is actually interested in buying VMS licenses
and does not feel current options meet their needs, then they
should reach out to Adam Hoff-Nielsen and discuss. Sales people
usually listen to good customers and try to accommodate - that
is their job.

Arne

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 10:49:23 -0400, Arne Vajh|+j wrote:

Attrition among existing customers will always be greater than zero,
so long term they need new customers to stay in business.

They could do what IBM did: it acquired a Linux company, Red Hat, to
stave off circling the plughole.

Perhaps VSI could also acquire a Linux company?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Le 29/08/2025 |a 17:01, Chris Townley a |-crit-a:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost- comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

First, great to a french guy to have to understand what FUD is about...
but i'm not sure I have understood :)

I really agree with everyone: no risk now, but how will be the future,
it seems not so good.

In France we have done a lot of work with VMSgenerations, because we
were thinking "there is a future for VMS, and we want to help for that".
Now, after about ten years of action, we are not so sure about the future.

We thought the VMS market would at least remain the same, because of the
VSI announces... it is has been shrinking all these years.

We thought something like an ecosystem revival will happen... and it is
yet very difficult to see VMS enthousiasts really fighting for VMS.

On my side I thought VMS could rebound as an ecosystem, and it has been
a reason to participate on VMSgenerations. And I analyze the way VSI did
act using a total different vision: it seems they act about VMS with a
sort of standard treatment for legacy applications.

I dreamed the way VSI could have act somehow as an orchestrator of a distributed rebound: permitting sleeping resources to go back to action.

They have done the opposite: a very centralized approach, taking
everything yet existing inside (development, modernization, maintenance,
cloud deployment...). In the same time their relation with intermediate sellers is bad; they don't need them. And I remember Sue Skonetski
saying at the 2014 bootcamp "no users club, no marketing".

It is not that they are bad guys. I think it is a business strategy
choice: you have a legacy domain, you get the maximum of it the time it
is living to help the last users to live.

Again on my opinion, this choice explain at least in part the continuing shrinking of the market. And why? Just because of the way explained
here: a legacy system is a long term risk.

And again being not a good guy, I think the VMS community has not acted
as an active community.

Today I have to say I doubt about my "dreams". And perhaps the way VSI
is acting is more realistic.

But perhaps something could be thought about today, to open new way for
a rebound we are still waiting for.

I had this idea at the Malm|| bootcamp. Camiel was "selling" the
strategy: no bare metal, at term only iSCSI on virtualization, cloud.
And he was saying "the time there are a changing - like Bob - and we
have to adapt". On my opinion, totally wrong - I was angry -.

But Camiel is right "the time there are a changing". What is the real
change? The real change is that a legacy OS, in a niche market, has been
able to not dying. Just because VMS is great? In part yes. But because
in our time the necessity of very long term systems, re-use of things is becoming very important. And VMS can go with these necessities.

The point, since 2014, is that VSI - and us - did not take the time to understand the specificity of VMS as an ecosystem, and what in our time
and its very new necessities is an opportunity for VMS.

If we are able to know who we are, we'll be able to speak about us. And
there will be a future for VMS if and only if it is seen as a new
opportunity in long term OS ecosystem, and so as an sustainable alternative.

Other condition: do it! Something new has to be learned by our community
- yes, yes, I know, a VMS professional, or DEC, or VSI have not to learn anything, because we are already great -. The immense success of Linux
is due at least because Linux users think about them as active members
of their ecosystem. It seems VMS users act in a more classical supplier customer way - and DECUS is forgotten -.

It has been these years a real great operation the decision of VSI of
redoing bootcamps. Something about a special ecosystem: our bootcamps. I
hope the next bootcamp in Portsmouth will be a great success, and, why
not, we'll see in it the bearth of an US VMSgenerations.

Constructing the future.

gcalliet
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:50:44 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

We thought the VMS market would at least remain the same, because of
the VSI announces... it is has been shrinking all these years.

No big surprise. The x86-64 port just took too long. It should have
been done a few years quicker, using the sort of shortcut we have
discussed before.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Le 10/09/2025 |a 00:50, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit-a:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:50:44 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

We thought the VMS market would at least remain the same, because of
the VSI announces... it is has been shrinking all these years.

No big surprise. The x86-64 port just took too long. It should have
been done a few years quicker, using the sort of shortcut we have
discussed before.

I'm not sure the most simple answers can do.

Sure it has been very difficult because of the too long time for x86.
Imagine VSI have had the x86 sooner, and have made the same as today "we
want everyone to go to x86". Do you really think it had reduced the
shrinking? And why not? At least in part because of the question
discussed here about the very long term issues with something thought of
as legacy.

I think not doing everything to have some story telling different from
bad the legacy story is one of the reason for shrinking.

Another issue is how you accompany someone who cannot go today into the
bright future offered with x86 (there can be a lot of reasons for that)
- today being our today or the today you think had to have been -. You
cannot only say "you'll have a future with x86". You have to understand
why this one is in his proper situation. And perhaps understanding this
not only helps getting him still with you, but also helps getting more understanding about the market you want to address.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2025-09-09, gcalliet <gerard.calliet@pia-sofer.fr> wrote:

Le 29/08/2025 a 17:01, Chris Townley a ocrita:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost-
comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

First, great to a french guy to have to understand what FUD is about...
but i'm not sure I have understood :)

FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 2025-09-09, Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:50:44 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

We thought the VMS market would at least remain the same, because of
the VSI announces... it is has been shrinking all these years.

No big surprise. The x86-64 port just took too long. It should have
been done a few years quicker, using the sort of shortcut we have
discussed before.

As you have been told multiple times, the option you propose already
exists in the form of Sector7 and has for _many_ years. They are very
well known within the VMS world, and yet many people still want the
genuine VMS product.

Please remember this before you raise this bogus subject yet again.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

In article <109rqpv$1nl2b$3@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

On 2025-09-09, Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:50:44 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

We thought the VMS market would at least remain the same, because of
the VSI announces... it is has been shrinking all these years.

No big surprise. The x86-64 port just took too long. It should have
been done a few years quicker, using the sort of shortcut we have
discussed before.

As you have been told multiple times, the option you propose already
exists in the form of Sector7 and has for _many_ years. They are very
well known within the VMS world, and yet many people still want the
genuine VMS product.

Please remember this before you raise this bogus subject yet again.

Arguing with him is like arguing with a blow dryer: you can tell
it whatever facts you like, for as long as you like, and for as
many times as you like, but it doesn't matter because it will
never do anything other than blow hot air.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

Le 10/09/2025 |a 14:23, Simon Clubley a |-crit-a:

On 2025-09-09, gcalliet <gerard.calliet@pia-sofer.fr> wrote:

Le 29/08/2025 |a 17:01, Chris Townley a |-crit-a:

A new blog post by Darya

https://vmssoftware.com/resources/blog/2025-08-29-openvms-vs-linux-cost- >>> comparison/

Interesting assumptions there...

First, great to a french guy to have to understand what FUD is about...
but i'm not sure I have understood :)

FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Simon.

Thanks Simon,

As a french cartesian, however, I think you begin with Doubt to get
certitude :)

G|-rard
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 11:57:33 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

Le 10/09/2025 |a 00:50, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit-a:

The x86-64 port just took too long. It should have
been done a few years quicker, using the sort of shortcut we have
discussed before.

I'm not sure the most simple answers can do.

My idea was to shortcut the process by abandoning the idea of a full port
of VMS to x86-64. Instead, concentrate on the part of it that the vast majority of (remaining) customers cared about: userland programs and DCL scripts. To handle those, you could implement an API emulation layer on
top of an existing suitably versatile OS kernel -- like Linux.

Sure it has been very difficult because of the too long time for x86.
Imagine VSI have had the x86 sooner, and have made the same as today "we
want everyone to go to x86". Do you really think it had reduced the shrinking?

Yes. Because the number of customers has been decreasing over time, so the sooner you could offer them a new product, the greater the chances of
success. Simple arithmetic.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:07:32 +0200, gcalliet wrote:

As a french cartesian, however, I think you begin with Doubt to get
certitude :)

rCLI think, therefore I am not sure.rCY
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.vms

On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

Look: I like VMS. I'm glad that it's still a going concern.
But the sad reality is that it has a very small niche market and
that market is shrinking. Getting mad at people pointing that
out isn't helping keep it available long term.

I .too, like VMS (contrary to what a lot of people here think :-) and
I personally know of a couple of niche markets VMS used to be strong
in (maybe not dominate, but held a good position). I never really
understood why they lost those markets and I would love to see them
back. But the more I read and see the more it seems to me that there
is no desire to actually grow the VMS market and the majority (including
those who actually control it) are perfectly happy to just let things
slide slowly down a black hole from which nothing ever returns.

bill


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2