From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article <109em8t$2dg49$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>On 9/5/2025 7:37 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <109d9l6$2298n$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
