From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <109eob0$2ejin$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 9/5/2025 9:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:   
   >> On 2025-09-05, Arne Vajhøj  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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)