Discussion:
VSI OpenVMS Roadmap: V9.2 is x86-64 only
Add Reply
Stephen Hoffman
2020-09-23 17:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Pulling this out into a new thread...

VSI has announced...
...the end of OpenVMS Alpha releases (the current V8.4-2L2 is the final
release),
...the upcoming and last OpenVMS I64 release (V8.4-2L3)
...all new work past -2L3 s focused on OpenVMS x86-64.

No OpenVMS V9.2 for OpenVMS I64 nor OpenVMS Alpha.

No OpenVMS VAX either, for the three of you in the back that still
weren't sure.

Details: https://vmssoftware.com/products/roadmap/


For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2020-09-23 17:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Pulling this out into a new thread...
VSI has announced...
...the end of OpenVMS Alpha releases (the current V8.4-2L2 is the final
release),
...the upcoming and last OpenVMS I64 release (V8.4-2L3)
...all new work past -2L3 s focused on OpenVMS x86-64.
No OpenVMS V9.2 for OpenVMS I64 nor OpenVMS Alpha.
But also:

"Please note that this announcement does not mean that Alpha and IA64
customers will not receive new functionality on those server platforms.
VSI will continue to update the VSI OpenVMS V8.4-X base with new features
such as the recently announced OpenJDK 8, Samba, Apache, OpenSSL, CRTL
improvements, and more. The new Open Source GFS2 file system will be
enabled on IA64 and Alpha (subject to customer demand)."

But yes, and as Arne wrote, VSI do want as many as possible to run x86.
Post by Stephen Hoffman
No OpenVMS VAX either, for the three of you in the back that still weren't
sure.
But the support roadmap has "VAX, All version". Whatever that means IRL.
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Details: https://vmssoftware.com/products/roadmap/
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this isn't in
the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS) licensing;
new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination dates.
Is this documented anyware?
Simon Clubley
2020-09-23 17:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences are not going to sit well with some people.

The main thing I noticed is that while VSI have abandoned the port of
Multinet to VSI VMS (and have resurrected UCX instead) they are actively
porting GFS2 (and looking at making it available for Itanium and Alpha).

What is the demand for GFS2 on VMS that would justify this ?

Will there be direct interaction with Linux GFS2 cluster members and
does this mean the VMS DLM implementation will be changed to support
Linux nodes in a GFS2 cluster ?

Will a VMS node be able to be a member of both a GFS2 cluster and a
normal VMS cluster at the same time ?

For those of you unaware of GFS2, here is some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFS2

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-23 18:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
The main thing I noticed is that while VSI have abandoned the port of
Multinet to VSI VMS (and have resurrected UCX instead) they are actively
porting GFS2 (and looking at making it available for Itanium and Alpha).
What is the demand for GFS2 on VMS that would justify this ?
Will there be direct interaction with Linux GFS2 cluster members and
does this mean the VMS DLM implementation will be changed to support
Linux nodes in a GFS2 cluster ?
Will a VMS node be able to be a member of both a GFS2 cluster and a
normal VMS cluster at the same time ?
Unless someone from VSI that actually knows what the plan is can
talk about it then one can speculate.

My speculation goes like:

VSI need a new file-system for VMS.

VSI figured out that it was much lower cost to lift an existing
open source file-system than creating one themselves from scratch.

GSF2 seems like a good fit for VMS.

VSI will not ditch RMS and break more than half of VMS applications,
so RMS will stay but it can use GFS2 instead of ODS-2/5.

That means VMS and Linux cannot share GFS2 file-system.

It would not make any sense to port DLM from Linux to VMS, so
GFS2 will use VMS DLM.

So GFS2 cluster and VMS cluster will be the same thing.

Arne
Robert A. Brooks
2020-09-23 19:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
VSI need a new file-system for VMS.
Yes
Post by Arne Vajhøj
VSI figured out that it was much lower cost to lift an existing
open source file-system than creating one themselves from scratch.
Yes
Post by Arne Vajhøj
GSF2 seems like a good fit for VMS.
Yes
Post by Arne Vajhøj
VSI will not ditch RMS and break more than half of VMS applications,
so RMS will stay but it can use GFS2 instead of ODS-2/5.
Yes
Post by Arne Vajhøj
That means VMS and Linux cannot share GFS2 file-system.
Correct.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It would not make any sense to port DLM from Linux to VMS, so
GFS2 will use VMS DLM.
Yes
--
-- Rob
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2020-09-23 21:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.

But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
Post by Simon Clubley
are not going to sit well with some people.
The main thing I noticed is that while VSI have abandoned the port of
Multinet to VSI VMS (and have resurrected UCX instead)
As I understood it, it is TCP/IP Services that will be updated.
It would surprice me *a lot* to see UCX back again...

Or does it fit some agenda of yours to call the current TCP/IP
Services product "UCX". Doesn't look professional if so, I'd say...
Post by Simon Clubley
they are actively
porting GFS2 (and looking at making it available for Itanium and Alpha).
What is the demand for GFS2 on VMS that would justify this ?
Will there be direct interaction with Linux GFS2 cluster members and
does this mean the VMS DLM implementation will be changed to support
Linux nodes in a GFS2 cluster ?
Will a VMS node be able to be a member of both a GFS2 cluster and a
normal VMS cluster at the same time ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFS2
Simon.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-23 23:05:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.

:-)

It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.

Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-09-24 00:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 01:45:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.

Which in the case of a Linux distro is almost the same.

If they need support then they need to renew.

If they do not need support then they would not have
chosen a commercial distro in the first place.

Arne
Simon Clubley
2020-09-24 12:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Which in the case of a Linux distro is almost the same.
If they need support then they need to renew.
If they do not need support then they would not have
chosen a commercial distro in the first place.
There is one major difference.

If a RHEL user decides they don't need to continue paying for RHEL
usage, they can move over to a free version of RHEL (CentOS or similar).

There is no free version of VMS. Once you go down that path you have to
continue paying your tithe to VSI every year or your systems will stop
working.

In this case, the use of "tithe" above is deliberate because that is
exactly what it is going to feel like to some people used to permanent
VMS licences and when the only choice they have had to face in the past
is whether they allow their fully paid-for systems to drop off support.

There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 15:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
There is no free version of VMS. Once you go down that path you have to
continue paying your tithe to VSI every year or your systems will stop
working.
In this case, the use of "tithe" above is deliberate because that is
exactly what it is going to feel like to some people used to permanent
VMS licences and when the only choice they have had to face in the past
is whether they allow their fully paid-for systems to drop off support.
It will certainly require a different way of thinking for the VMS world.

But the model is quite common today.
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.

When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.

The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.

The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-09-24 16:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is no free version of VMS. Once you go down that path you have to
continue paying your tithe to VSI every year or your systems will stop
working.
In this case, the use of "tithe" above is deliberate because that is
exactly what it is going to feel like to some people used to permanent
VMS licences and when the only choice they have had to face in the past
is whether they allow their fully paid-for systems to drop off support.
It will certainly require a different way of thinking for the VMS world.
But the model is quite common today.
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.
The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.
Arne
Sort of like, you pay for support, but don't get any support?

I'd think about holding out for the right to use, if VSI stops providing
support.
--
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
2020-09-24 17:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
Excellent. Where can I buy a licence for Mentec's version of RSX-11M
or RSTS/E and how much do those licences cost in 2020 ?

IOW, I don't think the situation is as simple as this.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.
The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.
For a company as small as VSI, I think it's reasonable to require
VSI to offer some firm legal guarantees in this area, involving some
kind of escrow.

This includes the guaranteed continued availability of such licences
to existing customers without interruption if VSI go bust and guarantees
that such licences will not rise in price per year by than more than a
reasonable percentage if support is continued to be offered.

If ongoing support is not available, such escrow should be in the form
of permanent licences that do not expire.

If VSI don't do this, then customers are putting the future of their
own company in the hands of VSI, especially if their VMS licences expire
a few weeks/months after VSI happened to go bust. That is going to be
unacceptable to many people.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 18:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
Excellent. Where can I buy a licence for Mentec's version of RSX-11M
or RSTS/E and how much do those licences cost in 2020 ?
If Mentec is in bankruptcy then send an offer to those
administering them.

But I believe that they were sold like 15 years ago.
Post by Simon Clubley
IOW, I don't think the situation is as simple as this.
I have pretty big confidence in bankruptcy lawyers greed.

:-)
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.
The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.
For a company as small as VSI, I think it's reasonable to require
VSI to offer some firm legal guarantees in this area, involving some
kind of escrow.
This includes the guaranteed continued availability of such licences
to existing customers without interruption if VSI go bust and guarantees
that such licences will not rise in price per year by than more than a
reasonable percentage if support is continued to be offered.
If ongoing support is not available, such escrow should be in the form
of permanent licences that do not expire.
If VSI don't do this, then customers are putting the future of their
own company in the hands of VSI, especially if their VMS licences expire
a few weeks/months after VSI happened to go bust. That is going to be
unacceptable to many people.
I don't think what you propose is common in the IT industry.

And I still believe that the real problem is the support not
the license.

Planning to run 25 years on an OS with no vendor is a risk.

So if VSI goes into bankruptcy they basically just need a
license covering the time it takes to migrate.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-09-24 19:17:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
Excellent. Where can I buy a licence for Mentec's version of RSX-11M
or RSTS/E and how much do those licences cost in 2020 ?
If Mentec is in bankruptcy then send an offer to those
administering them.
But I believe that they were sold like 15 years ago.
Post by Simon Clubley
IOW, I don't think the situation is as simple as this.
I have pretty big confidence in bankruptcy lawyers greed.
:-)
Yes. Look at the case a few years back where someone bought the rights
to a drug, then raised the price something like 750 times, or %, and the
problems it caused. There were those ready to reach for some tar,
feathers, a rail, and a rope.

Play with people's lives, and they just might start going after yours.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.
The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.
For a company as small as VSI, I think it's reasonable to require
VSI to offer some firm legal guarantees in this area, involving some
kind of escrow.
This includes the guaranteed continued availability of such licences
to existing customers without interruption if VSI go bust and guarantees
that such licences will not rise in price per year by than more than a
reasonable percentage if support is continued to be offered.
If ongoing support is not available, such escrow should be in the form
of permanent licences that do not expire.
If VSI don't do this, then customers are putting the future of their
own company in the hands of VSI, especially if their VMS licences expire
a few weeks/months after VSI happened to go bust. That is going to be
unacceptable to many people.
I don't think what you propose is common in the IT industry.
And I still believe that the real problem is the support not
the license.
I'm going to call bullshit on that statement. Say you're running VMS
and there is no problem, no immediate need for support, and the system
stops because of licensing issues.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Planning to run 25 years on an OS with no vendor is a risk.
Haven't VMS users to some extent been doing just that, for quite a long
time?
Post by Arne Vajhøj
So if VSI goes into bankruptcy they basically just need a
license covering the time it takes to migrate.
No, the need is to keep running the company.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
David Goodwin
2020-09-25 02:33:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
Excellent. Where can I buy a licence for Mentec's version of RSX-11M
or RSTS/E and how much do those licences cost in 2020 ?
If Mentec is in bankruptcy then send an offer to those
administering them.
Well, in this case they simply stopped selling the product it seems. This
happens all the time - there are plenty of Microsoft products you can't
buy new anymore. But they don't suddenly stop working just because
they're not sold anymore.

What if VSI stops selling OpenVMS someday? Perhaps they move into
some other business and can't be bothered dealing with OpenVMS
anymore. At least when HPE was planning to abandon OpenVMS
existing systems were going to keep running for as long as the hardware
could be maintained.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But I believe that they were sold like 15 years ago.
Post by Simon Clubley
IOW, I don't think the situation is as simple as this.
I have pretty big confidence in bankruptcy lawyers greed.
:-)
Do we know if VSIs OpenVMS rights are actually transferable?

If VSI went bankrupt could their source code license and right to
issue OpenVMS licenses be sold to another company? Or would that
other company have to make a new agreement with the HPE?

Seems to me if you've got something mission critical running on
OpenVMS you've go to decide which is more likely to fail: VSI or the
availability of used Alpha and IA64 hardware. Or I guess take the third
option - port to Linux.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-25 02:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
Do we know if VSIs OpenVMS rights are actually transferable?
If VSI went bankrupt could their source code license and right to
issue OpenVMS licenses be sold to another company? Or would that
other company have to make a new agreement with the HPE?
I doubt that any company would want to pick up VMS in
that case.

If VSI could not make it, then why would another company?

Arne
Simon Clubley
2020-09-25 12:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by David Goodwin
Do we know if VSIs OpenVMS rights are actually transferable?
If VSI went bankrupt could their source code license and right to
issue OpenVMS licenses be sold to another company? Or would that
other company have to make a new agreement with the HPE?
I doubt that any company would want to pick up VMS in
that case.
If VSI could not make it, then why would another company?
And in the mean time, you've got a lot of former customers whose
licences are about to expire (and their businesses stop working)
through no fault of their own.

I think my escrow idea or something similar that's equally legally
binding is the way to go if VSI introduce production licences that
have a termination date.

VSI get their recurring income while they are still viable and customers
get a legally binding guarantee that the moment VSI goes bust they either
get permanent licences (if ongoing support is no longer available) or (if
continuing support from another source is available) their yearly support
price increases are limited to a reasonable percentage increase.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Dave Froble
2020-09-24 19:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
There is also going to be one other massive issue for those same customers
as well: What happens if VSI goes bust and there is no-one around to
generate a new licence for the following year ?
That risk is probably low.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is a problem getting
money from them - giving them money is usually not a problem.
Excellent. Where can I buy a licence for Mentec's version of RSX-11M
or RSTS/E and how much do those licences cost in 2020 ?
IOW, I don't think the situation is as simple as this.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
The bankruptcy administrator would continue to issue licenses
and receive money and they would sell the right to issue
licenses to some company.
The real problem would be the lack of support going
forward.
For a company as small as VSI, I think it's reasonable to require
VSI to offer some firm legal guarantees in this area, involving some
kind of escrow.
This includes the guaranteed continued availability of such licences
to existing customers without interruption if VSI go bust and guarantees
that such licences will not rise in price per year by than more than a
reasonable percentage if support is continued to be offered.
If ongoing support is not available, such escrow should be in the form
of permanent licences that do not expire.
If VSI don't do this, then customers are putting the future of their
own company in the hands of VSI, especially if their VMS licences expire
a few weeks/months after VSI happened to go bust. That is going to be
unacceptable to many people.
+1

And I'll ask, how does RedHat insure (if they bother) that someone who
drops support also stops using their software?

I haven't yet seen details, but, if there is such exposure, I could not
recommend to customers to continue with VSI.

I have some issue with the concept of "we must insure that nobody rips
us off". If an entity is in no way going to be a source of revenue,
then there is nothing to lose. So what if they end up running VMS
without support? No real loss. To put your paying customers at risk
because of this bogus attitude is in my opinion poor business logic.
--
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
2020-09-24 19:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
And I'll ask, how does RedHat insure (if they bother) that someone who
drops support also stops using their software?
I don't think they do.

They probably do not care.

The options for customers are:
A) RHEL with subscription = cost, updates, support
B) RHEL without subscription = free, no updates, no support
C) CentOS = free, updates, no support

Since option C are better than option B, then they don't
worry about option B.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-09-24 13:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand? I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you have a subscription whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not. I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business. Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.

bill
Craig A. Berry
2020-09-24 14:30:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that. I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand?  I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you  have a subscription
They might be good for the duration of the support contract, which might
be more than a year, but the general point holds.
whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not.  I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business.  Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
Considering how long it can take to get a response out of VSI sales
about a contract renewal, that is a very likely scenario. Also consider
the case where the customer has one person on staff who knows how to
install VMS licenses and that person is on vacation the week the
licenses expire. Or has retired since the last renewal.

When we first got VSI licenses and support in 2017, we were assured our
licenses included the right to upgrade to VMS on x86_64, which was
expected to be two years away. Three and half years later, after
renewing once, v9.2 is still two years away, and it looks like switching
will mean losing non-expiring licenses. There are a lot of other reasons
we might never get there, but this is another big disincentive to even try.

I think David Turner is going to be selling more used Itanic gear than
he'd been expecting.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 14:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Craig A. Berry
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that.  I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Maybe. I got the impression that it came from VSI.

But I admit that I cannot find much via Google.

Only this from December 2016:

<quote>
But then, we haven't seen the licensing model yet
for the x86-64 version. I think a subscription model was mentioned by
someone at the IKEA IT HQ meeting. More like a guess, I think. :-)
</quote>

Google did find the announcement:

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/
Post by Craig A. Berry
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand?  I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you  have a subscription
They might be good for the duration of the support contract, which might
be more than a year, but the general point holds.
Per the link above they offer 1, 3, 4 and 5 year subscriptions.
Post by Craig A. Berry
whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not.  I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business.  Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
Considering how long it can take to get a response out of VSI sales
about a contract renewal, that is a very likely scenario. Also consider
the case where the customer has one person on staff who knows how to
install VMS licenses and that person is on vacation the week the
licenses expire.  Or has retired since the last renewal.
When we first got VSI licenses and support in 2017, we were assured our
licenses included the right to upgrade to VMS on x86_64, which was
expected to be two years away.  Three and half years later, after
renewing once, v9.2 is still two years away, and it looks like switching
will mean losing non-expiring licenses. There are a lot of other reasons
we might never get there, but this is another big disincentive to even try.
I think David Turner is going to be selling more used Itanic gear than
he'd been expecting.
If VSI are smart then they will make subscription renewal automatic
unless cancelled 3 months before expiration.

So 1 month before expiration the customer automatically
receive 1 set of PAK's + 1 invoice.

Then customer just need to get the PAK's loaded.

Given experience with SSL certificates then I am sure some
will forget.

Arne
Hans Bachner
2020-09-24 15:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
[...]
If VSI are smart then they will make subscription renewal automatic
unless cancelled 3 months before expiration.
So 1 month before expiration the customer automatically
receive 1 set of PAK's + 1 invoice.
[...]
Well... the majority of my customers don't purchase contracts with
automatic renewals as a matter of principle. And require an order number
on each invoice.

I'm really disappointed that VSI switched to a subscription only model.
In the past (and hints that a subscription model might show up are
almost as old as VSI), I got the impression that it would be an
additional option.

How do customers react who purchased 3+ years support contracts with the
promise that they could migrate to x86 for free (and only pay "normal"
support fees)?

Hans.
Simon Clubley
2020-09-24 17:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Craig A. Berry
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that.  I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Maybe. I got the impression that it came from VSI.
But I admit that I cannot find much via Google.
This started with a very specific statement from Stephen that this was
happening even though it was not in the roadmap. It's clear from that
statement that Stephen has some very specific knowledge about this.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 18:26:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Craig A. Berry
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that.  I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Maybe. I got the impression that it came from VSI.
But I admit that I cannot find much via Google.
This started with a very specific statement from Stephen that this was
happening even though it was not in the roadmap. It's clear from that
statement that Stephen has some very specific knowledge about this.
Steve posted yesterday.

The official announcement on VSI web site is dated May 1st.

Arne
Simon Clubley
2020-09-25 12:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Craig A. Berry
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that.  I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Maybe. I got the impression that it came from VSI.
But I admit that I cannot find much via Google.
This started with a very specific statement from Stephen that this was
happening even though it was not in the roadmap. It's clear from that
statement that Stephen has some very specific knowledge about this.
Steve posted yesterday.
The official announcement on VSI web site is dated May 1st.
The announcement on the VSI web site is about Alpha and Itanium and
talks about it moving licencing closer to how x86-64 licencing will
work, but it doesn't directly address x86-64 licencing.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-25 13:00:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Craig A. Berry
It's been posted here a number of times that people here think they
should do that.  I've never heard any previous hints from anyone at VSI
that they were considering doing so.
Maybe. I got the impression that it came from VSI.
But I admit that I cannot find much via Google.
This started with a very specific statement from Stephen that this was
happening even though it was not in the roadmap. It's clear from that
statement that Stephen has some very specific knowledge about this.
Steve posted yesterday.
The official announcement on VSI web site is dated May 1st.
The announcement on the VSI web site is about Alpha and Itanium and
talks about it moving licencing closer to how x86-64 licencing will
work, but it doesn't directly address x86-64 licencing.
I assume Hoff was talking about Alpha and Itanium licenses.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 14:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand?  I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you  have a subscription whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not.  I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business.  Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
Let me guess - you don't like SSL certificates.

:-)

Yes - it can be a practical hassle, but companies
seems to cope with it.

Arne
Craig A. Berry
2020-09-24 15:02:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand?  I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you  have a subscription whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not.  I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business.  Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
Let me guess - you don't like SSL certificates.
:-)
Yes - it can be a practical hassle, but companies
seems to cope with it.
But renewals can generally be automated for those. So far we haven't
seen any kind of auto-update features for VMS, and if license renewals
are anything like support contract renewals, there will be human contact
involving multiple attempts in order to acquire the thing that then must
be manually installed.

Now if they are planning to move to a cloud model where everything keeps
working as long as your credit card is still good, that could take care
of some of the problems, though obviously at greater cost to the customer
John Reagan
2020-09-24 14:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand? I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you have a subscription whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not. I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business. Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
bill
The NonStop customer base seems OK with that model. It has been "subscription-ish" based for a long time.
Dave Froble
2020-09-24 16:20:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Reagan
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
I am surprised anyone is surprised.
:-)
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Maybe, but RedHat doesn't have expiring licenses.
Just expiring subscriptions.
Did I misunderstand? I thought what they are saying is that
PAKs will be good for one year and then VMS stops running unless
you have a subscription whereas in the past, commercial PAKs
were indefinite whether you paid for support or not. I can
not see how any commercial operation can run with the Sword of
Damoclese hanging over their business. Even a 24 hour period
of downtime could prove disastrous.
bill
The NonStop customer base seems OK with that model. It has been "subscription-ish" based for a long time.
I'm thinking that we need to see the details, and plans for potential
issues before being able to comment. However, if the details aren't
acceptable, perhaps some who took the survey will want to change their
response to "do you have plans to move to x86" to "no".
--
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
2020-09-24 17:38:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by John Reagan
The NonStop customer base seems OK with that model. It has been "subscription-ish" based for a long time.
I'm thinking that we need to see the details, and plans for potential
issues before being able to comment. However, if the details aren't
acceptable, perhaps some who took the survey will want to change their
response to "do you have plans to move to x86" to "no".
The other thing to remember, even if NonStop licences simply stop
working after a certain date unless you renew them, is that HPE
is vastly larger than VSI.

As such, the possibility of HPE suddenly going bust is not likely to be
as major a concern for those customers as the possibility of VSI going
bust might be for VMS customers.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-09-24 08:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Isn't that also MicroSoft's model these days?
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-24 12:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Isn't that also MicroSoft's model these days?
MS has many different license models.

But it is also my impression that a lot of the enterprise
customers are on subscription plans. Not sure if it is
the only model.

Consumer market is still normal license sale I think.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-09-24 13:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It has been posted numerous times that VSI wants to switch
to a Redhat Linux business model.
Redhat Linux business model is an annual subscription model (with
price depending on level of support - none, 5 x 8, 7 x 24).
Isn't that also MicroSoft's model these days?
As far as I know you can still walk into places like Staple's and
buy Windows over the counter for a fixed price and the only threat
of termination is not knowing when MS will come out with a new one
and EOL the one you bought even though it still meets your needs.

bill
Dave Froble
2020-09-24 00:14:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
As one who has maintained all along that VSI would need recurring
revenue, looks like it's now occurred to them.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Terminating commercial licences
That should read "terminating sales of new perpetual licenses". At
least that's how I read it.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
I don't think it's possible to take back existing perpetual licenses.
However, note that there are no perpetual licenses for VMS V9.2 on x86
now, are there?

What will be interesting will be the prior sales to some, with the
guarantee of free (I think) to x86 when it's available. Got to keep
promises, else nobody will trust you.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
That would be my guess.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
are not going to sit well with some people.
I think it was inevitable.

However, old HP/Compaq/DEC licenses will continue to work. For older
versions of VMS. VMS V9.2 on x86 is a new product, and as many have
been complaining, it should move forward to today's practices.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
The main thing I noticed is that while VSI have abandoned the port of
Multinet to VSI VMS (and have resurrected UCX instead)
Now, that's interesting ....

Got to wonder why ....
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
As I understood it, it is TCP/IP Services that will be updated.
It would surprice me *a lot* to see UCX back again...
The UCX name and product died with VMS V4.*. V5.0 saw the introduction
of TCP/IP, which I understood was taken from OFS1.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Or does it fit some agenda of yours to call the current TCP/IP
Services product "UCX". Doesn't look professional if so, I'd say...
Some do. It bothers me too. But not enough to worry about it.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
they are actively
porting GFS2 (and looking at making it available for Itanium and Alpha).
What is the demand for GFS2 on VMS that would justify this ?
Will there be direct interaction with Linux GFS2 cluster members and
does this mean the VMS DLM implementation will be changed to support
Linux nodes in a GFS2 cluster ?
Will a VMS node be able to be a member of both a GFS2 cluster and a
normal VMS cluster at the same time ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFS2
Simon.
--
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
2020-09-24 12:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences
What licenses are going to be terminated? It would surprice me if
current licenses are affected. And Stephen also wrote about *new*
VSI OpenVMS licens PAKs.
But yes, it does sound as an issue. One need more details about
how it is meant to work. Is it combined with support agreements?
Post by Simon Clubley
are not going to sit well with some people.
The word terminating in that case refers to an upcoming licence type.
It does not refer to the act of terminating existing licences.
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by Simon Clubley
The main thing I noticed is that while VSI have abandoned the port of
Multinet to VSI VMS (and have resurrected UCX instead)
As I understood it, it is TCP/IP Services that will be updated.
It would surprice me *a lot* to see UCX back again...
Or does it fit some agenda of yours to call the current TCP/IP
Services product "UCX". Doesn't look professional if so, I'd say...
No agenda here in this case. I sometimes use UCX as a shorthand to refer
to the TCP/IP Services stack when there's no possibility of confusion with
the earlier UCX 4.x and prior versions because it's a lot more concise
than writing "TCP/IP Services" every single time.

It's no different than writing VMS instead of writing OpenVMS. When you
write "VMS", people don't usually think you are referring to VMS versions
prior to the VMS 5.x version where the name changed.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-09-24 16:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Or does it fit some agenda of yours to call the current TCP/IP
Services product "UCX". Doesn't look professional if so, I'd say...
No agenda here in this case. I sometimes use UCX as a shorthand to refer
to the TCP/IP Services stack when there's no possibility of confusion with
the earlier UCX 4.x and prior versions because it's a lot more concise
than writing "TCP/IP Services" every single time.
Just write "TCPIP". Only two more letters.
Simon Clubley
2020-09-24 17:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Or does it fit some agenda of yours to call the current TCP/IP
Services product "UCX". Doesn't look professional if so, I'd say...
No agenda here in this case. I sometimes use UCX as a shorthand to refer
to the TCP/IP Services stack when there's no possibility of confusion with
the earlier UCX 4.x and prior versions because it's a lot more concise
than writing "TCP/IP Services" every single time.
Just write "TCPIP". Only two more letters.
I've thought about that, but it becomes unclear if Multinet might come
into the discussion as "TCPIP" is not enough to uniquely identify
a product.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-09-24 20:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Simon Clubley
No agenda here in this case. I sometimes use UCX as a shorthand to refer
to the TCP/IP Services stack when there's no possibility of confusion with
the earlier UCX 4.x and prior versions because it's a lot more concise
than writing "TCP/IP Services" every single time.
Just write "TCPIP". Only two more letters.
I've thought about that, but it becomes unclear if Multinet might come
into the discussion as "TCPIP" is not enough to uniquely identify
a product.
Those who mean Multinet write Multinet. :-}
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-09-24 08:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
Terminating commercial licences are not going to sit well with some people.
I think that TCO is an issue. $10,000 forever (for licenses, not
support; I don't think that there has ever been an indefinite-support
contract for a one-time fee) vs. $5000 per year for support? Probably
attractive to many. $1000 per year for support vs. $10,000 forever?
Probably attractive to many.
Rich Jordan
2020-09-23 21:25:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Pulling this out into a new thread...
VSI has announced...
...the end of OpenVMS Alpha releases (the current V8.4-2L2 is the final
release),
...the upcoming and last OpenVMS I64 release (V8.4-2L3)
...all new work past -2L3 s focused on OpenVMS x86-64.
No OpenVMS V9.2 for OpenVMS I64 nor OpenVMS Alpha.
No OpenVMS VAX either, for the three of you in the back that still
weren't sure.
Details: https://vmssoftware.com/products/roadmap/
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
Wow on the SAAS. I would be willing to bet our remaining VMS holdouts who have been waiting on X86 are not going to consider that a positive development unless the savings over conversion licenses is _substantial_. I hope this isn't an indication that VSI shares HP's very well proven opinion on small shop single-system VMS customers.

Sad about Alpha but not surprised. A little surprised about the Integrity drop.
Ian Miller
2020-09-24 14:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Pulling this out into a new thread...
VSI has announced...
...the end of OpenVMS Alpha releases (the current V8.4-2L2 is the final
release),
...the upcoming and last OpenVMS I64 release (V8.4-2L3)
...all new work past -2L3 s focused on OpenVMS x86-64.
No OpenVMS V9.2 for OpenVMS I64 nor OpenVMS Alpha.
No OpenVMS VAX either, for the three of you in the back that still
weren't sure.
Details: https://vmssoftware.com/products/roadmap/
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this
isn't in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
Interesting changes in this roadmap. I see it as forward looking and realistic although I'm sure some won't like it :-)
Andrew Brehm
2020-09-25 07:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this isn't
in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
I find in their site:

"A VSI Subscription proposal includes both VSI “right to use” licenses
and VSI support. The support includes your choice of one of 4 different
support levels with each level having various benefits. There is also a
term period (1y, 3y, 4y, 5y) associated with VSI support."

I read this as term periods being associated with support, but not with
licenses.

Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
--
Andrew Brehm
Simon Clubley
2020-09-25 12:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this isn't
in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
"A VSI Subscription proposal includes both VSI ?right to use? licenses
and VSI support. The support includes your choice of one of 4 different
support levels with each level having various benefits. There is also a
term period (1y, 3y, 4y, 5y) associated with VSI support."
I read this as term periods being associated with support, but not with
licenses.
Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer
to how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address
x86-64 licencing.

Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Andrew Brehm
2020-09-25 13:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Andrew Brehm
Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer
to how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address
x86-64 licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
I can definitely say that time-limited licenses would not be appreciated
by any company I ever saw from the inside.

Lots of systems run a lot longer than anticipated and often forgotten by
the people supposed to operate them, that is especially true for
reliable systems like VMS.
--
Andrew Brehm
--
Andrew Brehm
Arne Vajhøj
2020-09-25 14:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brehm
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Andrew Brehm
Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer
to how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address
x86-64 licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
I can definitely say that time-limited licenses would not be appreciated
by any company I ever saw from the inside.
Lots of systems run a lot longer than anticipated and often forgotten by
the people supposed to operate them, that is especially true for
reliable systems like VMS.
It happens all the time.

But if the system keeps running and keeps producing value then they
keep paying for VMS.

It is a different paradigm. From CapEx to OpEx. From buying a car to
leasing a car.

But a lot of things in IT are moving to that model.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2020-09-26 00:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
 >> Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
 >
 > That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer
 > to how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address
 > x86-64 licencing.
 >
 > Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some
specific
 > knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
I can definitely say that time-limited licenses would not be
appreciated by any company I ever saw from the inside.
Lots of systems run a lot longer than anticipated and often forgotten
by the people supposed to operate them, that is especially true for
reliable systems like VMS.
It happens all the time.
But if the system keeps running and keeps producing value then they
keep paying for VMS.
It is a different paradigm. From CapEx to OpEx. From buying a car to
leasing a car.
But a lot of things in IT are moving to that model.
That does not make them wise decisions.

bill
Craig A. Berry
2020-09-25 14:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
For those that haven't encountered the licensing changes (and this isn't
in the roadmap), VSI licensing has gone to services-based (SaaS)
licensing; new VSI OpenVMS product authorization keys have termination
dates.
"A VSI Subscription proposal includes both VSI ?right to use? licenses
and VSI support. The support includes your choice of one of 4 different
support levels with each level having various benefits. There is also a
term period (1y, 3y, 4y, 5y) associated with VSI support."
I read this as term periods being associated with support, but not with
licenses.
Do you read it differently or did you find another document?
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer
to how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address
x86-64 licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
Maybe, or maybe he just knows what "subscription based pricing model"
means. I believe it's pretty much what Oracle did with Java.

What is nowhere mentioned in the VSI announcement is what happens to
your "right to use" when your support contract expires. Is there an
enforcement clause that requires you to expunge the software from your
systems when you no longer have a current support contract? Or are you
allowed to continue using it but with no support or updates? Both
models are common in the software world, but a subscription usually
means the former.

All this is orthogonal to whether or not PAKs expire. Just because you
have a non-expiring PAK does not mean it's legal to keep using the
software without a support contract unless your license agreement
specifically says so. It might be difficult to enforce non-compliance,
but that doesn't make it legal.
Stephen Hoffman
2020-09-27 17:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Craig A. Berry
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer to
how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address x86-64
licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
Maybe, or maybe he just knows what "subscription based pricing model"
means. I believe it's pretty much what Oracle did with Java.
As I'd mentioned earlier... New purchases for VSI OpenVMS I64 licenses
are now receiving VSI product PAKs with termination dates. That's a
shift to a SaaS/Subscription model.

There's no VSI service PAK(s) incorporated in the VSI product purchase,
which would have been the logical approach for non-terminating licenses
with terminating support, if that end date was to be managed for local
support-related software. Otherwise, that support-related software
continues to do whatever, and software at VSI has to filter and/or
delete or reject whatever might arrive at VSI servers. All GDPR- and
opt-in telemetry discussions aside, getting crash reports is still
useful irrespective of support, and even if there's no feedback
expected or intended. But I digress. This given the various limits of
the LMF implementation. LMF knows zilch about support licensing, so
there's no support licensing termination date. And as LMF is one of
many applications using RMS and app-maintained fields within records
and and not SQLite or ilk, adding fields can be "fun". But I digress.
Again.

My interpretation of the PAKs now being issued is that product licenses
terminate when support terminates, and that we'll be reloading VSI PAKs
for those servers periodically as support is extended or support
subscriptions purchased.

Some of us do have licenses for whatever VSI is going to call OpenVMS
on x86-64, but at least some of us do not know the details of those
licenses might be. But I... yeah, that, again.

Who among the readers here that haven't commented on this VSI licensing
change is interesting, too.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
Simon Clubley
2020-09-28 12:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Who among the readers here that haven't commented on this VSI licensing
change is interesting, too.
It's also interesting who hasn't commented on the GFS2 GPL questions
either, if only to reassure us that VSI do in fact have this covered.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2020-09-28 13:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Who among the readers here that haven't commented on this VSI licensing
change is interesting, too.
It's also interesting who hasn't commented on the GFS2 GPL questions
either...
My comments are that I do know absolutely nothing about anything having
"*GPL*" in the name and that I probably couldn't care less about it.

Does that help you?
Rich Jordan
2020-09-28 15:11:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Post by Craig A. Berry
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer to
how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address x86-64
licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
Maybe, or maybe he just knows what "subscription based pricing model"
means. I believe it's pretty much what Oracle did with Java.
As I'd mentioned earlier... New purchases for VSI OpenVMS I64 licenses
are now receiving VSI product PAKs with termination dates. That's a
shift to a SaaS/Subscription model.
There's no VSI service PAK(s) incorporated in the VSI product purchase,
which would have been the logical approach for non-terminating licenses
with terminating support, if that end date was to be managed for local
support-related software. Otherwise, that support-related software
continues to do whatever, and software at VSI has to filter and/or
delete or reject whatever might arrive at VSI servers. All GDPR- and
opt-in telemetry discussions aside, getting crash reports is still
useful irrespective of support, and even if there's no feedback
expected or intended. But I digress. This given the various limits of
the LMF implementation. LMF knows zilch about support licensing, so
there's no support licensing termination date. And as LMF is one of
many applications using RMS and app-maintained fields within records
and and not SQLite or ilk, adding fields can be "fun". But I digress.
Again.
My interpretation of the PAKs now being issued is that product licenses
terminate when support terminates, and that we'll be reloading VSI PAKs
for those servers periodically as support is extended or support
subscriptions purchased.
Some of us do have licenses for whatever VSI is going to call OpenVMS
on x86-64, but at least some of us do not know the details of those
licenses might be. But I... yeah, that, again.
Who among the readers here that haven't commented on this VSI licensing
change is interesting, too.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
I wish I was in a position to have told VSI that I would personally be buying two VMS x86 license with bells and whistles (cluster) for personal use but that SaaS was not an acceptable option; their roadmap says they made the decision based on feedback. Unless I win a lottery or get a similarly large cash infusion that sadly isn't in the cards. But I do want to keep VMS at home to play with and keep up on.

Unfortunately all I've got any more is being a hobbyist which understandably bears no weight. My one paid license system is a PWS600au; my home DS10 will probably now have to retire at the end of 2021 due to licenses. Our remaining customers who were planning on moving to VMS x86 are now reconsidering again due to this SaaS change (initial reactions were decidedly negative). They strongly preferred the ongoing support but permanent license option. If they had to drop support (economic downturn, bad cash flow, etc) it would not shut down their business.

But they are also small customers (DS10, clustered DS10, DS20e, RX2660, and RX3600), who really had not mattered to TPTB since HP bought Compaq. I don't know if remaining small customers carry any weight with VSI either when it comes to making roadmap decisions.

If the licenses under SaaS for a small server are very reasonable (with or without the crown jewel licenses) then I might still, down the road, pick up an x86 server to run it just for my own enjoyment. Personally I could never afford a full license/license set for a hobby. I'd also be willing to pay a reasonable recurring fee for a hobbyist license set that is less restrictive (with termination dates). I really do want to stay connected to VMS even in retirement when I'll finally have time to have real fun with it.
John H. Reinhardt
2020-09-28 19:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich Jordan
Post by Stephen Hoffman
Post by Craig A. Berry
That's about Alpha and Itanium licencing and how it's moving closer to
how x86-64 licencing will work, but it doesn't directly address x86-64
licencing.
Given how specific Stephen's statement is, he clearly has some specific
knowledge about how this is going to work on x86-64 VMS.
Maybe, or maybe he just knows what "subscription based pricing model"
means. I believe it's pretty much what Oracle did with Java.
As I'd mentioned earlier... New purchases for VSI OpenVMS I64 licenses
are now receiving VSI product PAKs with termination dates. That's a
shift to a SaaS/Subscription model.
There's no VSI service PAK(s) incorporated in the VSI product purchase,
which would have been the logical approach for non-terminating licenses
with terminating support, if that end date was to be managed for local
support-related software. Otherwise, that support-related software
continues to do whatever, and software at VSI has to filter and/or
delete or reject whatever might arrive at VSI servers. All GDPR- and
opt-in telemetry discussions aside, getting crash reports is still
useful irrespective of support, and even if there's no feedback
expected or intended. But I digress. This given the various limits of
the LMF implementation. LMF knows zilch about support licensing, so
there's no support licensing termination date. And as LMF is one of
many applications using RMS and app-maintained fields within records
and and not SQLite or ilk, adding fields can be "fun". But I digress.
Again.
My interpretation of the PAKs now being issued is that product licenses
terminate when support terminates, and that we'll be reloading VSI PAKs
for those servers periodically as support is extended or support
subscriptions purchased.
Some of us do have licenses for whatever VSI is going to call OpenVMS
on x86-64, but at least some of us do not know the details of those
licenses might be. But I... yeah, that, again.
Who among the readers here that haven't commented on this VSI licensing
change is interesting, too.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
I wish I was in a position to have told VSI that I would personally be buying two VMS x86 license with bells and whistles (cluster) for personal use but that SaaS was not an acceptable option; their roadmap says they made the decision based on feedback. Unless I win a lottery or get a similarly large cash infusion that sadly isn't in the cards. But I do want to keep VMS at home to play with and keep up on.
As do a lot of us.
Post by Rich Jordan
Unfortunately all I've got any more is being a hobbyist which understandably bears no weight. My one paid license system is a PWS600au; my home DS10 will probably now have to retire at the end of 2021 due to licenses.
Unless you plan on doing commercial work with the DS10 the VSI Community License Program is available. I have my DS10 running happily on the VSI V8.4-2L1 release and licenses right now. Clusters, HBVS and all are licensed for Alpha. Even if you are doing commercial work, you may qualify for a VSI ISV license which can be free if you don't require any support commitment. Alpha licenses with the CLP are not going away.
Post by Rich Jordan
Our remaining customers who were planning on moving to VMS x86 are now reconsidering again due to this SaaS change (initial reactions were decidedly negative). They strongly preferred the ongoing support but permanent license option. If they had to drop support (economic downturn, bad cash flow, etc) it would not shut down their business.
But they are also small customers (DS10, clustered DS10, DS20e, RX2660, and RX3600), who really had not mattered to TPTB since HP bought Compaq. I don't know if remaining small customers carry any weight with VSI either when it comes to making roadmap decisions.
If the licenses under SaaS for a small server are very reasonable (with or without the crown jewel licenses) then I might still, down the road, pick up an x86 server to run it just for my own enjoyment. Personally I could never afford a full license/license set for a hobby. I'd also be willing to pay a reasonable recurring fee for a hobbyist license set that is less restrictive (with termination dates). I really do want to stay connected to VMS even in retirement when I'll finally have time to have real fun with it.
Again, if not doing commercial work, then the CLP (or ISV) should be fine for the x86 systems. Hopefully by then we can convince VSI that Hobbyists should be allowed access to VMSClusters and HBVS, not just paying enterprise customers.

Contact VSI at ***@vmssoftware.com for information on the ISV program.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Dave Froble
2020-09-28 21:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John H. Reinhardt
I have my DS10 running happily on the VSI
V8.4-2L1 release and licenses right now.
Just curious.

A DS10 is an EV6 CPU. Why not V8.4-2L2 which is built using EV6
capabilities?

Probably doesn't matter.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
John H. Reinhardt
2020-09-28 23:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by John H. Reinhardt
I have my DS10 running happily on the VSI
V8.4-2L1 release and licenses right now.
Just curious.
A DS10 is an EV6 CPU.  Why not V8.4-2L2 which is built using EV6 capabilities?
Probably doesn't matter.
Because V8.4-2L1 is what VSI lets CLP users download. I was hoping for -2L2 but nope.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Loading...