Discussion:
A new suggestion to handle the temporary production licences problem
Add Reply
Simon Clubley
2021-05-27 18:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
While there is a lot of unease at the requirement to pay for a licence
on an ongoing annual basis, it seems the _real_ problem is that customers
could go bust (or at least be badly hurt) if the supply of VSI licences
suddenly stops.

As such I have another idea:

VSI doesn't issue the customer licences, HPE does (for a fee for each
licence, which allows HPE to make a small profit on each licence).
If HPE doesn't want this role, even though they will profit from it,
there should be other large companies able to take on this role.

The main problem is the worry that the company issuing the licences may
go bust and VSI is probably a lot smaller than most of the customers
still using VMS, so this concern is massively amplified.

With a company the size of HPE issuing the licences, this concern is
massively reduced because HPE is too large (hopefully!) to suddenly stop
operating overnight without any successor company.

Under a formal contract arrangement with VSI, HPE would be notified when
VSI had acquired a new customer and HPE would then be responsible for
collecting payment from the customer on an ongoing basis and for passing
it, minus HPE's fee, to VSI. HPE, not VSI, would issue licences to the
customer as required.

This HPE-VSI contract would state that this arrangement has a long notice
period (5-10 years) so, if either the successor to VSI or HPE themselves
wanted to cancel it, the arrangement could not just be terminated at short
notice.

You would still need guarantees within the contract to guard against the
500% annual increase problem, but this should be more acceptable to VSI
and their creditors than the escrow option might be.

No VMS specific knowledge would be required within HPE (other than the
ability to generate a VMS licence on demand) so this would be purely a
contract management and licence distribution arrangement no different
to the contracts that HPE currently manage for its own customers.

This means that if VSI goes bust, then customers would still get
their licences from HPE for a minimum of 5-10 years and there would
be no interruption in the supply of new licences to VSI's customers
regardless of what happens to VSI.

VSI's creditors would still see income from licences and so would
any successor organisation to VSI.

I would suggest the customer's annual licence payment is in two parts:
About 20% for the right to continue running their current VMS version
for the contract period without any support and about 80% for full
support from VSI or any successor company.

When there's a support organisation in place (either VSI or another
company) the customer is required to pay the full 100% via HPE each year.
If VSI fails and there is no replacement company, but only creditors,
the customer is only required to pay the 20% each year.

That way, the customer still gets their annual licence without having
to pay for the support services they are not receiving and the VSI
creditors still get something from the VSI customers on an ongoing basis.

Comments ? Suggested improvements ?

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Bill Gunshannon
2021-05-27 19:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
While there is a lot of unease at the requirement to pay for a licence
on an ongoing annual basis, it seems the _real_ problem is that customers
could go bust (or at least be badly hurt) if the supply of VSI licences
suddenly stops.
VSI doesn't issue the customer licences, HPE does (for a fee for each
licence, which allows HPE to make a small profit on each licence).
If HPE doesn't want this role, even though they will profit from it,
there should be other large companies able to take on this role.
The main problem is the worry that the company issuing the licences may
go bust and VSI is probably a lot smaller than most of the customers
still using VMS, so this concern is massively amplified.
With a company the size of HPE issuing the licences, this concern is
massively reduced because HPE is too large (hopefully!) to suddenly stop
operating overnight without any successor company.
Under a formal contract arrangement with VSI, HPE would be notified when
VSI had acquired a new customer and HPE would then be responsible for
collecting payment from the customer on an ongoing basis and for passing
it, minus HPE's fee, to VSI. HPE, not VSI, would issue licences to the
customer as required.
This HPE-VSI contract would state that this arrangement has a long notice
period (5-10 years) so, if either the successor to VSI or HPE themselves
wanted to cancel it, the arrangement could not just be terminated at short
notice.
You would still need guarantees within the contract to guard against the
500% annual increase problem, but this should be more acceptable to VSI
and their creditors than the escrow option might be.
No VMS specific knowledge would be required within HPE (other than the
ability to generate a VMS licence on demand) so this would be purely a
contract management and licence distribution arrangement no different
to the contracts that HPE currently manage for its own customers.
This means that if VSI goes bust, then customers would still get
their licences from HPE for a minimum of 5-10 years and there would
be no interruption in the supply of new licences to VSI's customers
regardless of what happens to VSI.
VSI's creditors would still see income from licences and so would
any successor organisation to VSI.
About 20% for the right to continue running their current VMS version
for the contract period without any support and about 80% for full
support from VSI or any successor company.
When there's a support organisation in place (either VSI or another
company) the customer is required to pay the full 100% via HPE each year.
If VSI fails and there is no replacement company, but only creditors,
the customer is only required to pay the 20% each year.
That way, the customer still gets their annual licence without having
to pay for the support services they are not receiving and the VSI
creditors still get something from the VSI customers on an ongoing basis.
Comments ? Suggested improvements ?
1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?

bill
Simon Clubley
2021-05-28 18:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
HPE already does for its own customers.

Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
and licence management.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Dave Froble
2021-05-29 00:35:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Bill Gunshannon
1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
HPE already does for its own customers.
Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
and licence management.
Simon.
If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
would not do the same to them again?
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Simon Clubley
2021-05-31 13:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Bill Gunshannon
1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
HPE already does for its own customers.
Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
and licence management.
If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
would not do the same to them again?
This is a contract issue, not a VMS support issue.

If you don't like HPE, VSI could always do this with another major
company that is unlikely to go outright bust, even if VSI does.

I have now offered two ideas and Arne has now offered his own idea
about how to fix this problem. I notice there has been no real comment
on the merits of my last idea.

Do you or anyone else have any comments on the ideas offered or do you
have any ideas of your own on this major problem for the VMS community ?

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Dave Froble
2021-05-31 14:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Bill Gunshannon
1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
HPE already does for its own customers.
Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
and licence management.
If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
would not do the same to them again?
This is a contract issue, not a VMS support issue.
If you don't like HPE, VSI could always do this with another major
company that is unlikely to go outright bust, even if VSI does.
I have now offered two ideas and Arne has now offered his own idea
about how to fix this problem. I notice there has been no real comment
on the merits of my last idea.
Do you or anyone else have any comments on the ideas offered or do you
have any ideas of your own on this major problem for the VMS community ?
Simon.
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.

KISS!

Now, as for the misguided fear that someone will "cheat". Any VMS users
(that use VSI's latest stuff) will want VSI to be there for them, with
new updates, bug fixes, and such, and will pay reasonable support fees.

As for those who will not purchase support, they most likely will still
be running on HP/Compaq/DEC license PAKs, and would never be a VSI
customer, so what's the loss? Really, what is the loss? Hard to lose
something you never had.

Responsible companies do not want to be software pirates. Too much
downside. Companies will, and do, review software to insure they are in
compliance with all license requirements.

One or more people at VSI are paranoid, and, it's going to bite them on
the ass, hard.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-05-31 19:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
Dave Froble
2021-05-31 22:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.
When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?
Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).
It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?

Phillip, think before typing ...

Now, if it is desired for non-commercial users to contribute, then have
a special support plan for them. Cheap. No special help, just some
money for "support". (Support of VSI.)
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-01 04:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.
When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?
Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
That is not all there is to support.
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).
It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.
They why pay? If someone without support (a hobbyist, say) finds a
problem, then someone with support will request a patch, and all will
get it.
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?
Not now. But just like there are still VAX systems around, there might
be VSI systems which are frozen after a few years. Why continue to pay
for support?
Dave Froble
2021-06-01 05:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.
When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?
Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
That is not all there is to support.
That is new VMS versions and patches and such.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).
It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.
They why pay? If someone without support (a hobbyist, say) finds a
problem, then someone with support will request a patch, and all will
get it.
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?
Not now. But just like there are still VAX systems around, there might
be VSI systems which are frozen after a few years. Why continue to pay
for support?
Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-01 06:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.
When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.
OK, but if there are no licenses (or everyone gets perpetual licenses
for free), media can be borrowed, patches are made available to
everyone, then it will be difficult to tell if a commercial customer is
running without support. How, legally, would commercial customers be
required to have support? You can't make it part of the license
agreement if there are no licenses.
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?
Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
That is not all there is to support.
That is new VMS versions and patches and such.
Yes, but if media can be borrowed, patches are available to all, etc.,
then that is not a motivation to pay for support.
Post by Dave Froble
Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?
I am not the topic. I am not a commercial customer. Presumably the
idea is that if VSI goes bust, then the agreement that commercial use
requires support is null and void.
Dave Froble
2021-06-01 14:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.
When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.
OK, but if there are no licenses (or everyone gets perpetual licenses
for free), media can be borrowed, patches are made available to
everyone, then it will be difficult to tell if a commercial customer is
running without support. How, legally, would commercial customers be
required to have support? You can't make it part of the license
agreement if there are no licenses.
"No license PAK" is not the same as "no license" ...
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?
Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
That is not all there is to support.
That is new VMS versions and patches and such.
Yes, but if media can be borrowed, patches are available to all, etc.,
then that is not a motivation to pay for support.
The motivations to pay for support are:

1) honesty
2) support VSI
3) adhering to agreements you made
4) violating what you agreed to could incur penalties
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?
I am not the topic. I am not a commercial customer. Presumably the
idea is that if VSI goes bust, then the agreement that commercial use
requires support is null and void.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-02 07:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.

Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.

Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.

This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly. This would allow customers to react and pay but not lose everything if they don't.

From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or too harsh. Who wants to switch to a system that will stop running if not paid again?

(This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2021-06-02 08:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
My idea is the same as it's been for years.  Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support?  Big
commercial users?  Sure.  Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.  And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?  Could VSI prevent that?  Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support.  But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).  But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and
up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will
make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets
to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only,
keeping production system running but very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".

So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-02 11:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
My idea is the same as it's been for years.  Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support?  Big
commercial users?  Sure.  Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.  And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?  Could VSI prevent that?  Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support.  But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).  But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.

Time is on this idea's side.

Of course a few commercial users would escape, but they would with every licensing system that does not enforce a stop of working systems if the licence becomes invalid. You have to compare this idea to the other ideas, not to a perfect world.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-02 11:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
Right, so according to your plan no system could run VMS without paying
for support.
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-03 10:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
Right, so according to your plan no system could run VMS without paying
for support.
Except for very small non-productive systems, yes.

And that was the idea.
Dave Froble
2021-06-03 13:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
Right, so according to your plan no system could run VMS without paying
for support.
Except for very small non-productive systems, yes.
And that was the idea.
What about large non-productive systems?
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-04 06:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
Right, so according to your plan no system could run VMS without paying
for support.
Except for very small non-productive systems, yes.
And that was the idea.
What about large non-productive systems?
Get a hobbyist licence? I'm not sure I understand the question.
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2021-06-02 13:56:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
My idea is the same as it's been for years.  Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support?  Big
commercial users?  Sure.  Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not.  And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money?  Could VSI prevent that?  Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support.  But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not).  But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will
make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near future.
As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1 core and 4
GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.

No, I do not beleive in your suggestion.
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-03 10:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.
1 or 2 CPU Alphas are probably not in scope for new OpenVMS versions.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
No, I do not beleive in your suggestion.
It's not a question of belief. I just think it is a better solution than VSI's current idea.
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2021-06-03 10:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores
and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.
1 or 2 CPU Alphas are probably not in scope for new OpenVMS versions.
The current roadmap has Alpha "Standard Support" into 2030 (as long
as the current roadmap reaches). But it also depends on what you
mean with a "new version". An Alpha 8.4-2L3? We don't know.

Anyway, for those a 1-2 core x86 VM will probably be "enough".
Should those production systems be free?
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-03 12:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
The current roadmap has Alpha "Standard Support" into 2030 (as long
as the current roadmap reaches). But it also depends on what you
mean with a "new version". An Alpha 8.4-2L3? We don't know.
Anyway, for those a 1-2 core x86 VM will probably be "enough".
Should those production systems be free?
No. But I think they ought to keep running if unlicensed.

You are confusing enforcement mechanism with price policy.

I have not commented on how much OpenVMS should cost and what uses should be free. I just thought collapsing a running system to using at most 4 cores and 8 GB of memory would be an acceptable way to deal with forcing licence and support renewals and would allow for easier adoption among hobbyists, developers and sysadmins.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-03 12:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
The current roadmap has Alpha "Standard Support" into 2030 (as long
as the current roadmap reaches). But it also depends on what you
mean with a "new version". An Alpha 8.4-2L3? We don't know.
Anyway, for those a 1-2 core x86 VM will probably be "enough".
Should those production systems be free?
No. But I think they ought to keep running if unlicensed.
You are confusing enforcement mechanism with price policy.
I have not commented on how much OpenVMS should cost and what uses
should be free. I just thought collapsing a running system to using at
most 4 cores and 8 GB of memory would be an acceptable way to deal with
forcing licence and support renewals and would allow for easier adoption
among hobbyists, developers and sysadmins.
I see your point, but it is not a good idea in practice, since it misses
the smaller production systems. Think of it this way: x86 systems are
powerful (because more modern) and even a minimal system is probably
more powerful than most Alphas (many still in use) and even some or most
Itaniums. If there is a collapse and the system needs more than 8 GB,
then your idea doesn't work. Also, more powerful systems can be had for
free (if not now then soon). Should hobbyists not be allowed to use
them?

OK, your idea is orthogonal to hobbyist licenses, which could exist for
any system. However, in practice, such licenses for low-powered systems
could be used by hobbyists if there are no license costs.

Things are complicated enough; we shouldn't make them more complicated,
especially not by defining something which is not future proof. I
remember when a 1-GB disk and 24 MB memory was a big system with a big
price.
Dave Froble
2021-06-03 13:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and
non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4
cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing
and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or
someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to
using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but
very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with
1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.
1 or 2 CPU Alphas are probably not in scope for new OpenVMS versions.
The current roadmap has Alpha "Standard Support" into 2030 (as long
as the current roadmap reaches). But it also depends on what you
mean with a "new version". An Alpha 8.4-2L3? We don't know.
Anyway, for those a 1-2 core x86 VM will probably be "enough".
Should those production systems be free?
If they are, VSI will be missing out on much revenue, and that could
break them.

An old friend that sold services once told me, "I don't want to make a
killing on a single transaction, I just want a little nick. But I want
a LOT of nicks."

Not too many free WEENDOZE systems out there, right? Lots of little
"nicks" can add up nicely.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-04 06:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
The current roadmap has Alpha "Standard Support" into 2030 (as long
as the current roadmap reaches). But it also depends on what you
mean with a "new version". An Alpha 8.4-2L3? We don't know.
Anyway, for those a 1-2 core x86 VM will probably be "enough".
Should those production systems be free?
If they are, VSI will be missing out on much revenue, and that could break them.
An old friend that sold services once told me, "I don't want to make a killing on a single transaction, I just want a little nick.  But I want a LOT of nicks."
Not too many free WEENDOZE systems out there, right?  Lots of little "nicks" can add up nicely.
Actually, MSFT did exactly that: offer Windows for free for small devices.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2139080/microsoft-makes-windows-free-on-iot-and-small-mobile-devices-but-not-pcs.html

Makers of tablets and phones with a screen size of less than 9" could get a free Windows licence. I think I owned at least one of those free-Windows devices. They were dirt cheap for a few years when Microsoft was trying to establish Windows Mobile and Windows on tablets.

I fear VSI will be missing out much more revenue if they try to sell a product that stops working when the subscription isn't renewed. That's not the sort of thing that convinces new customers. If they just want to milk existing customers, that is fine. But to get people to switch from VMS on Alpha or Itanium to VMS on x64 instead of to Linux or from non-VMS to VMS, it will be difficult outside the cloud.
Arne Vajhøj
2021-06-04 12:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Dave Froble
An old friend that sold services once told me, "I don't want to make a
killing on a single transaction, I just want a little nick.  But I
want a LOT of nicks."
Not too many free WEENDOZE systems out there, right?  Lots of little
"nicks" can add up nicely.
Actually, MSFT did exactly that: offer Windows for free for small devices.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2139080/microsoft-makes-windows-free-on-iot-and-small-mobile-devices-but-not-pcs.html
Makers of tablets and phones with a screen size of less than 9" could
get a free Windows licence. I think I owned at least one of those
free-Windows devices. They were dirt cheap for a few years when
Microsoft was trying to establish Windows Mobile and Windows on tablets.
I am not sure what we can conclude from that.

MS could not sell Windows Phone (which even though it shares
kernel with desktop Windows is not the same OS).

So they tried to give it away to get customers. But that did
not work either - still no demand.

So in the end they killed the product.

Arne

Dave Froble
2021-06-03 13:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and
non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4
cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or
someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to
using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but
very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with
1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.
1 or 2 CPU Alphas are probably not in scope for new OpenVMS versions.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
No, I do not beleive in your suggestion.
It's not a question of belief. I just think it is a better solution than
VSI's current idea.
Well, just about anything is better than the current VSI direction.

I also do not think much of your suggestion. Too complex. Made for
lawyers.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Gunshannon
2021-06-03 16:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and
non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4
cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or
someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to
using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but
very slowly...
We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with
1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.
You select the config that is "good enough". And why wouldn't you if
you get it for free. Is it not that all 1 or 2 CPU Alphas suddenly
need a 4+ CPU/core system that is also way faster per core.
1 or 2 CPU Alphas are probably not in scope for new OpenVMS versions.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
No, I do not beleive in your suggestion.
It's not a question of belief. I just think it is a better solution than
VSI's current idea.
Well, just about anything is better than the current VSI direction.
I also do not think much of your suggestion.  Too complex.  Made for
lawyers.
I think beancounters are a much bigger threat than lawyers. Whatever
finally becomes the business model for VMS the most important feature
it needs is to not be another argument for moving off of VMS.

bill
Simon Clubley
2021-06-03 17:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
I think beancounters are a much bigger threat than lawyers. Whatever
finally becomes the business model for VMS the most important feature
it needs is to not be another argument for moving off of VMS.
As I've mentioned previously, there's also the "Will I get fired by
my boss if I make the decision to go with VSI ?" worry the customer's
manager faces.

Going with VSI or porting to Linux (for example) is just another
decision a manager has to make. They are unlikely to have some
emotional bond that drives them to VSI regardless.

The manager is unlikely to make the more risky choice without a
_very_ good reason so it is the job of VSI to show how going with
VSI is safer for the customer's manager than it is for the manager
to order a port to Linux (for example).

So far, VSI seem to be making a _very_ poor job of convincing those
customer managers that going with VSI is the safer option for them.

Having time-limited licences that will stop working if VSI goes bust
will not exactly convince the customer's manager that going with VSI
is the safer option for the manager when it comes to keeping their job.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Simon Clubley
2021-06-02 12:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think it's going to be viable either.

Do you like or dislike any of the other proposed solutions Jan-Erik ?

Do you have any ideas of your own ?

This is something that should have been sorted out at the start 5 years
ago instead of just sprung on the community last year. VSI were seriously
wrong to suddenly change the ground rules in that way IMHO.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2021-06-02 13:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think it's going to be viable either.
Do you like or dislike any of the other proposed solutions Jan-Erik ?
Do you have any ideas of your own ?
This is something that should have been sorted out at the start 5 years
ago instead of just sprung on the community last year. VSI were seriously
wrong to suddenly change the ground rules in that way IMHO.
Simon.
You pay support to get new versions and patches.
If you don't pay, you stay where you are.

Simple as that.

In no way should the system suddenly just stop working.
Not in any circumstances.
Dave Froble
2021-06-02 14:03:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
I don't think it's going to be viable either.
Do you like or dislike any of the other proposed solutions Jan-Erik ?
Do you have any ideas of your own ?
This is something that should have been sorted out at the start 5 years
ago instead of just sprung on the community last year. VSI were seriously
wrong to suddenly change the ground rules in that way IMHO.
Simon.
VSI mainly, I think, comes from the old way of doing things, large
license fee up front. I can see their confusion on how to move forward.

There are two issues here, and they are not very compatible.

1) Recurring support fees.

I think this is the way forward. There can be multiple fees, such as an
additional fee for something like cluster. I don't agree with that,
since it will inhibit the use of clusters. Still, support should depend
on usage.

2) VSI no longer around to issue new licenses.

No entity can take a route that might cause them to fail. No ISVs can
gamble on their work being for naught. There must be a way forward for
customers/users, regardless of whether VSI succeeds or fails.

Before license PAKs, there was still a license to use software. It
specified allowed usage. This can still happen.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-02 08:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
Post by Andrew Brehm
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
will make serious customers pay.
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Post by Andrew Brehm
From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI
is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And
new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or
too harsh.
True, especially considering the competition. It doesn't matter what
the actual comparison is, what matters is what the bean-counters
perceive.
Post by Andrew Brehm
(This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could
run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe
someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)
Indeed.
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-02 11:20:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
I think all of that is too complicated.
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
As cores and RAM become cheaper, commercial applications limited to few cores will become a faint memory.

And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free if this is required.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
will make serious customers pay.
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI
is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And
new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or
too harsh.
True, especially considering the competition. It doesn't matter what
the actual comparison is, what matters is what the bean-counters
perceive.
The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?

What each costs over ten years won't matter if we don't even know yet if the project pans out or will be important. Once it is important, money is easily gotten.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
(This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could
run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe
someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)
Indeed.
Yes.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-02 11:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market. It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
Post by Andrew Brehm
and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
powerful than X".
Post by Andrew Brehm
The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?
For new products. What about moving to a different platform?
Bill Gunshannon
2021-06-02 12:54:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market.
The key here is "used to be". Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
You mean like it did for the VAX? Welcome to reality.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.
The only true non-commercial use is hobbyists. Non-profit,
Government use, Academic use are all just as commercial as a
bank, store or factory.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
powerful than X".
We used to have a local pizza shop that ran everything from POS
to payroll and inventory on a MicroVAX II. Commercial does not
automatically mean big.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?
For new products. What about moving to a different platform?
Isn't that what was implied by saying Linux?

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2021-06-02 12:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
  DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market.
The key here is "used to be".  Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?
I don't.

Too bad.

VMS was very big in academics in Denmark back in 80's and early 90's.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2021-06-02 13:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
                                         DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market.
The key here is "used to be".  Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?
I don't.
Too bad.
VMS was very big in academics in Denmark back in 80's and early 90's.
In the US as well. I kept it in use in the CS department at my
University until long after academia had abandoned it but even
I knew it was a losing battle.

bill
Dave Froble
2021-06-02 15:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial.
You're being a bit too narrow with the term "commercial". Think instead
of a resource that normally costs money.

Academic or otherwise, number crunching for some purpose will cost,
regardless of the vendor.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
(It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market. It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
There are two broad uses.

1) For some purpose which has value. Call this "commercial".

2) A purpose with no value, other than entertainment(sometimes),
education, and such.

It should be up to VSI, IBM, and such to determine whether a usage
should require support fees. Don't get hung up on the word
"commercial", which has different meanings to different folks.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
Your pet "ox" getting gored, huh?
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.
Why not? They are using someone else's labor, resources, and such, just
as "commercial" users do. The "free" usage has much more to do with the
benefits to the vendor, ie; exposure of their products so as to induce
more "commercial" usage.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
powerful than X".
Post by Andrew Brehm
The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?
For new products. What about moving to a different platform?
This whole discussion is a problem for VSI, and it is up to VSI to
resolve it to customer's satisfaction. Not something for c.o.v to
remedy. If they do not satisfy the customers, long term, all they will
have is short term customers.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Simon Clubley
2021-06-02 18:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No, it is not commercial.
You're being a bit too narrow with the term "commercial". Think instead
of a resource that normally costs money.
Academic or otherwise, number crunching for some purpose will cost,
regardless of the vendor.
Instead of commercial use when talking about licences, think in terms
of production use.

Academic number crunching is production use.
Post by Dave Froble
This whole discussion is a problem for VSI, and it is up to VSI to
resolve it to customer's satisfaction. Not something for c.o.v to
remedy. If they do not satisfy the customers, long term, all they will
have is short term customers.
Since VSI management seem to be burying their heads in the sand,
then at least the comp.os.vms ideas might start _some_ discussion
in VSI about options the VSI management may not have considered.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2021-06-02 18:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Dave Froble
This whole discussion is a problem for VSI, and it is up to VSI to
resolve it to customer's satisfaction. Not something for c.o.v to
remedy. If they do not satisfy the customers, long term, all they will
have is short term customers.
Since VSI management seem to be burying their heads in the sand,
then at least the comp.os.vms ideas might start _some_ discussion
in VSI about options the VSI management may not have considered.
There are many opinions about how to fix the problem.

But practically everyone agrees that it is a problem.

We know that VSI follow comp.os.vms so it is very likely
that at least someone in VSI got the message.

Whether the message get from the VSI tech guys to the VSI
biz guys is another question.

But with enough discussion here + direct letters + informal
conversations + various other channels then I am optimistic
that the message will eventually come through.

Arne
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2021-06-02 18:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market.
The key here is "used to be". Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?
Not many. But most people here think that VSI should try to get new
customers. Academia might not bring in that much profit, but it trains
a new generation who want to use VMS. DEC's biggest mistake was losing
the academic market.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
Right; that's why I think that basic payment on computing power is not a
good idea.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
You mean like it did for the VAX? Welcome to reality.
Right. The whole discussion here is to try to avoid what happened to
VAX, so a proposed solution which leads to a similar end result is a
non-starter.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
The only true non-commercial use is hobbyists. Non-profit,
Government use, Academic use are all just as commercial as a
bank, store or factory.
Depends on the definition, local laws, etc.
Bill Gunshannon
2021-06-02 18:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market.
The key here is "used to be". Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?
Not many. But most people here think that VSI should try to get new
customers. Academia might not bring in that much profit, but it trains
a new generation who want to use VMS. DEC's biggest mistake was losing
the academic market.
Don't blame DEC for that one. VMS was firmly entrenched in
academia during DEC's era. It was COMAPQ and HP that dropped
that ball. Neither of them had a clue what went on in
academia or how it worked. And, HP at least, was unwilling
to listen when suggestions were offered.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
Right; that's why I think that basic payment on computing power is not a
good idea.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
You mean like it did for the VAX? Welcome to reality.
Right. The whole discussion here is to try to avoid what happened to
VAX, so a proposed solution which leads to a similar end result is a
non-starter.
Post by Bill Gunshannon
The only true non-commercial use is hobbyists. Non-profit,
Government use, Academic use are all just as commercial as a
bank, store or factory.
Depends on the definition, local laws, etc.
That's true. By redefining the word anything can become non-commercial.

bill
Andrew Brehm
2021-06-03 10:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
if this is required.
No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market. It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.
I think academic use for non-educational purposes qualifies as "commercial". It can certainly qualify for the requirement for a licence.

As for the big mistake, I made no such assumption.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.
The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.
Not if hobbyists use small system. Also, hobbyist licences are up to VSI. They can grant licences for larger hobbyist systems.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.
VSI can grant licences for free.

The idea is that very small systems would be free while larger systems need a licence. Whether that licence would be free or not free depending on use is independent of the basic idea of having automatic free licences for very small systems.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
powerful than X".
Why not?

Many OS are licenced per core. VMware ESXi is, for example. They do define a number of cores as the limit up to which a certain licence works.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?
For new products. What about moving to a different platform?
I wasn't talking about products. I am seeing this from the perspective of in-house IT. A project can be anything, a new product, an old product continue, a new version of some software, a reconfiguration, a move to a new platform or new hardware.
Dave Froble
2021-06-03 13:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.
Why not? Should all those games and such written for WEENDOZE systems
be free? If so, they would not exist.

This whole topic isn't about cost, it's about drop dead dates.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Arne Vajhøj
2021-06-02 12:51:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop.  And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
As cores and RAM become cheaper, commercial applications limited to few
cores will become a faint memory.
Even in the Linux x86-64 market then production VM's with 4 cores
and 8 GB RAM are not that uncommon. The VM may reside on a physical box
with more resources, but that is a different story - *nobody* likes
licensing of SW running in VM based on the total physical specs.

And it is even worse with VMS. Most production VMS systems are very
old and when they were created 4 CPU 8 GB RAM was a high end system.
And they still run fine on that. It is probably like 80-90% of
production VMS system that couldd run on that.

Sure if the VMS world start changing the 40 year old applications
to newer technologies then resource demand will go up. But that may
turn out to be a very slow process.
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
8 GB only, keeping production system running.
Certainly not all production systems.
Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be better
than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
If the pricing is that 4 core 8 GB is free and more cost money, then
I think you can expect those that pay to have an actual need for
more.

And lack of resources may not just limit throughput - it may mean
won't run.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2021-06-02 13:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Andrew Brehm
Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
use is system specs.
Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop.
Depends on the volume and the technology used.

A modern web shop with all the bells and whistles do use resources.
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.
Number crunching has turned into Linux only.

Arne
Loading...