From: jgd@cix.co.uk   
      
   In article <109fa1s$2hamk$2@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk (Arne Vajhøj)   
   wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That is a reasonable assumption, but not an absolutely solid one. There   
   are plausible reasons why it could be otherwise:   
      
   One is simply management turnover. If a company has been continuing to   
   use VMS (but not expanding its use, while it seemed doomed), a new   
   manager, wanting to make their mark, might decide it's time to migrate   
   off VMS, irrespective of its future.   
      
   Also, now that VMS is not intrinsically doomed, management become willing   
   to think about it, rather than ignoring the problem for their own peace   
   of mind. At that point, they may decide it's time for a migration.   
      
   One-year commercial licenses, perversely, make that more likely. A year   
   is not enough time to migrate a complex system, starting from zero. If   
   there's a perceived risk of VSI going broke, then a migration plan needs   
   to be made and periodically updated. Once someone gets emotionally   
   invested in that plan, it's likely to get executed to remove a risk.   
      
   To maintain a niche in the industry, VMS needs to be demonstrably   
   superior to Linux in some way that matters to a reasonably large number   
   of potential customers. I don't know what that might be, but supporting   
   legacy customers doesn't last forever.   
      
   John   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)