From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <109f9lv$2hamk$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   Mmm, for some things yes, for others, no.  The level of risk has   
   (in a lot of ways) gone way down over time.  It's a safe bet   
   that Linux will still be running on machines in 20+ years.  VMS?   
   Well, I'm not a betting man, but I think that's a much chancier   
   bet.   
      
   >There is definitely a risk for VMS in the 20+ years   
   >time horizon.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   >But it does not really matter.   
      
   Disagree.   
      
   >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.   
      
   That's not the issue though, is it?  All it takes is one large   
   customer to decide that they want to migrate off of VMS because   
   $reasons and and VSI's revenue could drop precipitously, causing   
   the equivalent of a bank run.   
      
   This could happen for any number of reasons that have,   
   themselves, nothing to do with VSI or VMS.   
      
   Your earlier assertion was that VSI was as stable as "most other   
   companies".  I suppose that may be true in the sense that most   
   companies are walking a delicate tightrope of stability, but it   
   is simply untrue when compared to, say, IBM, Oracle, Dell, MSFT,   
   etc, let alone the Googles and so on of the world.   
      
   >They have a decade to see where the IT world is going and   
   >how it goes with VSI and VMS.   
      
   Well, right now, it's pretty clear where it's headed.   
      
   And you know what?  That makes me sad, because as I said, I like   
   VMS and want to see it prosper.  I'm not privy to the details of   
   what goes on inside of VSI, and so I recognize that I'm   
   operating without the benefit of a lot of information, but that   
   kind of uncertainy is what makes purchasing descision makers   
   wary.   
      
   If you think that's FUD, then I don't know what to tell you.   
   The weird thing is that you are similarly not privy to a lot of   
   those details.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)