From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 9/5/2025 11:00 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   I did not speak for David. I was speaking for myself.   
      
   *I* think that what you wrote matches what David described.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   No that is a very simple business model that will prevent   
   VSI from going bust.   
      
   And VMS revenue stream is not that uncertain. We have   
   seen the decline rate over a couple of decades when   
   it was on a doomed platform. Now it is on a platform   
   with a future.   
      
   I consider it a reasonable assumption that attrition rate   
   on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition   
   rate on a doomed platform.   
      
   Arne   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)