From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 9/4/2025 11:53 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > In article <109c9pn$1r966$1@dont-email.me>,   
   > Dave Froble   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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)