From: arne@vajhoej.dk
On 9/5/2025 10:51 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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.
Long term in IT regarding target technology is highly
uncertain.
There is definitely a risk for VMS in the 20+ years
time horizon.
But it does not really matter.
Nobody start a migration now due to a risk that far out. They
will have a significant risk of having to do multiple migrations
because they those the wrong migration the first time.
They have a decade to see where the IT world is going and
how it goes with VSI and VMS.
Arne
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
