From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Dave Froble   wrote:   
   >On 8/29/2025 2:59 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:   
   >> On 2025-08-29, Arne Vajhøj  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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)