[continued from previous message]   
      
   >on a platform with a future is equal to or less than attrition   
   >rate on a doomed platform.   
      
   What you don't consider is that there is insufficient   
   information available to actually assert that that future is   
   secure.  It _may_ be that VSI's revenue stream is well balanced   
   across many customers.  If so, great!  All good.   
      
   But it _also_ may be that there are one or two large customers   
   accounting for the bulk of revenue and then a long tail of much   
   smaller customers.  What sorts of commitments does VSI have (and   
   that they can discuss openly) from the large customers?  Having   
   that information would go a long way towards reducing the sort   
   of risk I'm talking about.   
      
   Which, by the way, is very real and not just FUD: if you haven't   
   worked with sales folks who deal with people making purchasing   
   decisions and heard them talking about _this exact sort of   
   thing_ then I honestly question your experience to make these   
   kinds of statements, because I'll bet cookies to cake that VSI's   
   sales folks have and do have those discussions.   
      
   Dismissing the concerns out of hand without also acknowledging   
   that your assumptions are based on incomplete data doesn't   
   actually _help_ keep VMS in good shape, in fact it does the   
   opposite.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)