From: david+usenet@zx.net.nz
In article <109cm7h$1ul2v$1@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP says...
>
> On 2025-09-04, Dan Cross wrote:
> > In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Dave Froble 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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
