VSI has a new CEO

[Simon Clubley]

Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
has a new CEO, Kevin Shaw, who is replacing Jim Janetos:

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/

Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Simon.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?
Simon.

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

[calliet gérard]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?
Simon.

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

The significant difference is that he is a lot more closer to Yoann
Gedda than all his predecessors: he had significant positions in Rocket
Software and Century21st, two companies where Johan Gedda had investments.

(Rocket Software has tools to help legacy systems. Century21st helps
main frame environments to be managed a modern way ; they are now
responsible for the HQ data center of vmssoftware)

No comments, yet :)

Gérard Calliet

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?
Simon.

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

The significant difference is that he is a lot more closer to Yoann Gedda
than all his predecessors: he had significant positions in Rocket Software
and Century21st, two companies where Johan Gedda had investments.
(Rocket Software has tools to help legacy systems. Century21st helps main
frame environments to be managed a modern way ; they are now responsible
for the HQ data center of vmssoftware)
No comments, yet :)
Gérard Calliet

Probably just good to get someone in as CEO that is a good business guy
and that is not too much blinded by some personal VMS history. And it is
"Johan Gedda". Nice guy, shared lunch table at a seminar at the IKEA IT-HQ.

He is not just "another investor", as a recent VSI presentation says:

"VSI is wholly owned by Swedish entrepreneur Johan Gedda through Teracloud
Group"

[calliet gérard]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?
Simon.

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

The significant difference is that he is a lot more closer to Yoann
Gedda than all his predecessors: he had significant positions in
Rocket Software and Century21st, two companies where Johan Gedda had
investments.
(Rocket Software has tools to help legacy systems. Century21st helps
main frame environments to be managed a modern way ; they are now
responsible for the HQ data center of vmssoftware)
No comments, yet :)
Gérard Calliet

Probably just good to get someone in as CEO that is a good business guy
and that is not too much blinded by some personal VMS history. And it is
"Johan Gedda". Nice guy, shared lunch table at a seminar at the IKEA IT-HQ.

One thing is knowing someone at a lunch - I had also this pleasure -.
Another thing is understanding what he really wants. And it is a litle
bit complicated when you don't get any elaborated explication on a
strategy, and have to analyze 3 personal profiles of ceos in 6 years.

And Jan-Eric, you are right, in my opinion, to say one can be blinded by
some personal VMS history, but there are a lot of ways of being blind,
for example when you have to be a leader in some complicated situation,
and you apply usual practices, not knowing well where you are.

The north europeans, in the old times, conquered groenland and north
america with very small boats, because they did know the northen oceans.
The phoeniciens in the same time, could have failed. Both were very good
sailors however.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"VSI is wholly owned by Swedish entrepreneur Johan Gedda through
Teracloud Group"

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".

What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?

Simon.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?
Simon.

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.

I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

[calliet gérard]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?
Simon.

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.
I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

I was not sure, Jan-erik, but it seems you are a little bit in some self
depreciation.

We all know that there are been big mistakes in 80s, and big mistakes
from digital.

But Johan Gedda had a bet on VMS, because of VMS qualities. One of them
is very simple: VMS survived. I don't know if you are Darwinist, but
species who survive have special qualities. If you don't evaluate these
qualities, or if you don't make them be at the center of your operation,
you are not able to make them go on.

In the 80s there are been extraordinary good ideas, and also big
mistakes. Often you can evaluate an idea because of its originality. Our
new ceo could think about what made digital at same level of ibm in few
years, for example, and it could be a good idea to search some
transposition of the VMS good ideas of 80s to these days.

One of the wrost thing I heard last months was Mr Brown quoting Clair
Grant who would have said "we are the same as others". If we were the
same or we would be as apple, or we would be dead. We are neither. So we
are a little bit different, and we have to level on it. Don't be self
deprecate, don't be too ambitious, perhaps, just product adequate
evaluations.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.
I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

We all know that there are been big mistakes in 80s, and big mistakes
from digital.
But Johan Gedda had a bet on VMS, because of VMS qualities. One of them
is very simple: VMS survived. I don't know if you are Darwinist, but
species who survive have special qualities. If you don't evaluate these
qualities, or if you don't make them be at the center of your operation,
you are not able to make them go on.

VMS has survived.

But I would not say that is thriving.

Post by calliet gérard
In the 80s there are been extraordinary good ideas, and also big
mistakes. Often you can evaluate an idea because of its originality. Our
new ceo could think about what made digital at same level of ibm in few
years, for example, and it could be a good idea to search some
transposition of the VMS good ideas of 80s to these days.

I don't think what worked in the 80's will work today.

Heck - what worked in the 80's did not even work in the late 90's!

Arne

[calliet gérard]

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?
Simon.

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.
I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

I was not sure, Jan-erik, but it seems you are a little bit in some self
depreciation.
We all know that there are been big mistakes in 80s, and big mistakes
from digital.
But Johan Gedda had a bet on VMS, because of VMS qualities. One of them
is very simple: VMS survived. I don't know if you are Darwinist, but
species who survive have special qualities. If you don't evaluate these
qualities, or if you don't make them be at the center of your operation,
you are not able to make them go on.
In the 80s there are been extraordinary good ideas, and also big
mistakes. Often you can evaluate an idea because of its originality. Our
new ceo could think about what made digital at same level of ibm in few
years, for example, and it could be a good idea to search some
transposition of the VMS good ideas of 80s to these days.
One of the wrost thing I heard last months was Mr Brown quoting Clair
Grant who would have said "we are the same as others". If we were the
same or we would be as apple, or we would be dead. We are neither. So we
are a little bit different, and we have to level on it. Don't be self
deprecate, don't be too ambitious, perhaps, just product adequate
evaluations.
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything on VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V, VMS needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT people constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in operationally", helps to make the case for staying with VMS.

Difficult to understand, Clair, how quotting what you said and confirm
here I could have been disquotting you.
Perhaps what I didn't understand was "it is not us VSI, who don't want
to be different, it is our customers". You were just quotting them.
And me, as other customers friend, I could say there had been severly
misquoted.

Pure sterile rethoric, I agree.

As you know a lot more than me, this is about a difference between MUST
and MIGHT. It is evident a lot of customer have to be able to be "not
different", and go to the cloud, vmsware, and so on. And, because of
that VSI, MUST offer everything which open this possibility for them.

But - you misquotted me :) . I quotted you in a series from Mr Brown
blog where it is said - it's my summary - you MUST go to virtualisation
because everyone goes there. I cannot agree on this point. The BIG
difference I know about VMS csutomers is that for a lot of specific
questions their choices cannot be determined by "what everyones does",
even if, and I agree with you, they generally want to be more standard.

I have been a little provocative quotting you, because I was chocked
when I read that. For sure VMS has to be integrated the more it can be.
But VMS is a lot more than a thing that does the same thing as others.
And the customers I know are a lot more than common customers. If they
are still on VMS it is because they have specific qualities which match
VMS specific qualities.

The third port of VMS is as the others a thrilling experience. It is
also a very difficult business adventure. You can desagree totally on
that with me, but my opinion is this adventure cannot be successfull if
all the actors don't leverage the specific culture, methods, way of
thinking integration. It has been for me a real pain for years to see
VSI thinking VMS can be selled as any other "not so different" thing.

I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by calliet gérard
The third port of VMS is as the others a thrilling experience.

Actually, in some ways it's more than the third port, depending
on how you define "port". :-)

There was the Mach microkernel experiment and there was the initial
work done for Prism...

Simon.

[Dave Froble]

Post by calliet gérard

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?
Simon.

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.
I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

I was not sure, Jan-erik, but it seems you are a little bit in some self
depreciation.
We all know that there are been big mistakes in 80s, and big mistakes
from digital.
But Johan Gedda had a bet on VMS, because of VMS qualities. One of them
is very simple: VMS survived. I don't know if you are Darwinist, but
species who survive have special qualities. If you don't evaluate these
qualities, or if you don't make them be at the center of your operation,
you are not able to make them go on.
In the 80s there are been extraordinary good ideas, and also big
mistakes. Often you can evaluate an idea because of its originality. Our
new ceo could think about what made digital at same level of ibm in few
years, for example, and it could be a good idea to search some
transposition of the VMS good ideas of 80s to these days.
One of the wrost thing I heard last months was Mr Brown quoting Clair
Grant who would have said "we are the same as others". If we were the
same or we would be as apple, or we would be dead. We are neither. So we
are a little bit different, and we have to level on it. Don't be self
deprecate, don't be too ambitious, perhaps, just product adequate
evaluations.
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par
le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything
on VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V,
VMS needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT
people constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in
operationally", helps to make the case for staying with VMS.

Difficult to understand, Clair, how quotting what you said and confirm
here I could have been disquotting you.
Perhaps what I didn't understand was "it is not us VSI, who don't want
to be different, it is our customers". You were just quotting them.
And me, as other customers friend, I could say there had been severly
misquoted.
Pure sterile rethoric, I agree.
As you know a lot more than me, this is about a difference between MUST
and MIGHT. It is evident a lot of customer have to be able to be "not
different", and go to the cloud, vmsware, and so on. And, because of
that VSI, MUST offer everything which open this possibility for them.
But - you misquotted me :) . I quotted you in a series from Mr Brown
blog where it is said - it's my summary - you MUST go to virtualisation
because everyone goes there. I cannot agree on this point. The BIG
difference I know about VMS csutomers is that for a lot of specific
questions their choices cannot be determined by "what everyones does",
even if, and I agree with you, they generally want to be more standard.
I have been a little provocative quotting you, because I was chocked
when I read that. For sure VMS has to be integrated the more it can be.
But VMS is a lot more than a thing that does the same thing as others.
And the customers I know are a lot more than common customers. If they
are still on VMS it is because they have specific qualities which match
VMS specific qualities.
The third port of VMS is as the others a thrilling experience. It is
also a very difficult business adventure. You can desagree totally on
that with me, but my opinion is this adventure cannot be successfull if
all the actors don't leverage the specific culture, methods, way of
thinking integration. It has been for me a real pain for years to see
VSI thinking VMS can be selled as any other "not so different" thing.
I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

Well, you are not wrong. If something else could replace VMS, then it
would already have done so years ago.

The reality is, there are some features in VMS, perhaps different
features for different customers, that make moving to something else,
from distasteful to impossible. (Maybe not impossible, but nearly.)

VSI must listen to the customers, and it appears they are doing so.
Consider the new Alpha releases. That wasn't in their original plans.

I was not originally a fan of VMs, VMWARE, Virtualbox, and such. I
figured they were a response to one app, one box. Perhaps that was
their original usage. But after testing with Virtualbox, and
considering the possibilities, I have changed my opinion about VMs.
Though I still wonder if they can be hacked, and bypass any security in
the instances running on them.

Now, I might still consider running production without a VM, but for
testing, development, and such, the VM environment has some advantages.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by calliet gérard

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?
Simon.

I hope he knows enough about the "cultures" from the 80s to
avoid making the same mistakes.
I think that VSIs customers of today expects VSI to live
up to standards of today, not the standards of the 80s.

I was not sure, Jan-erik, but it seems you are a little bit in some self
depreciation.
We all know that there are been big mistakes in 80s, and big mistakes
from digital.
But Johan Gedda had a bet on VMS, because of VMS qualities. One of them
is very simple: VMS survived. I don't know if you are Darwinist, but
species who survive have special qualities. If you don't evaluate these
qualities, or if you don't make them be at the center of your operation,
you are not able to make them go on.
In the 80s there are been extraordinary good ideas, and also big
mistakes. Often you can evaluate an idea because of its originality. Our
new ceo could think about what made digital at same level of ibm in few
years, for example, and it could be a good idea to search some
transposition of the VMS good ideas of 80s to these days.
One of the wrost thing I heard last months was Mr Brown quoting Clair
Grant who would have said "we are the same as others". If we were the
same or we would be as apple, or we would be dead. We are neither. So we
are a little bit different, and we have to level on it. Don't be self
deprecate, don't be too ambitious, perhaps, just product adequate
evaluations.
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par
le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted!  What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything
on VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V,
VMS needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT
people constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in
operationally", helps to make the case for staying with VMS.

Difficult to understand, Clair, how quotting what you said and confirm
here I could have been disquotting you.
Perhaps what I didn't understand was "it is not us VSI, who don't want
to be different, it is our customers". You were just quotting them.
And me, as other customers friend, I could say there had been severly
misquoted.
Pure sterile rethoric, I agree.
As you know a lot more than me, this is about a difference between MUST
and MIGHT. It is evident a lot of customer have to be able to be "not
different", and go to the cloud, vmsware, and so on. And, because of
that VSI, MUST offer everything which open this possibility for them.
But - you misquotted me :) . I quotted you in a series from Mr Brown
blog where it is said - it's my summary - you MUST go to virtualisation
because everyone goes there. I cannot agree on this point. The BIG
difference I know about VMS csutomers is that for a lot of specific
questions their choices cannot be determined by "what everyones does",
even if, and I agree with you, they generally want to be more standard.
I have been a little provocative quotting you, because I was chocked
when I read that. For sure VMS has to be integrated the more it can be.
But VMS is a lot more than a thing that does the same thing as others.
And the customers I know are a lot more than common customers. If they
are still on VMS it is because they have specific qualities which match
VMS specific qualities.
The third port of VMS is as the others a thrilling experience. It is
also a very difficult business adventure. You can desagree totally on
that with me, but my opinion is this adventure cannot be successfull if
all the actors don't leverage the specific culture, methods, way of
thinking integration. It has been for me a real pain for years to see
VSI thinking VMS can be selled as any other "not so different" thing.
I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

Well, you are not wrong.  If something else could replace VMS, then it
would already have done so years ago.

Uhh.. Dave... Something did replace VMS. Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS. Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS. Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.

On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business. One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.
Sigh....

bill

[Dave Froble]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Dave Froble
Well, you are not wrong. If something else could replace VMS, then it
would already have done so years ago.

Uhh.. Dave... Something did replace VMS. Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS. Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS. Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.

Yes, VMS was replaced in many shops, but not all shops. That's what I'm
saying above. Some shops just could not, or would not, move off VMS.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business. One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.

Yes, SAP has ruined more than one business. When one's business
practices provides some "edge" that makes one successful, perhaps a
Harvard Business School type might think it's possible to "go generic",
which is why we need to "nuke" the HBS.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Dave Froble
Well, you are not wrong. If something else could replace VMS, then it
would already have done so years ago.

Uhh.. Dave... Something did replace VMS. Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS. Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS. Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.

Yes, VMS was replaced in many shops, but not all shops. That's what I'm
saying above. Some shops just could not, or would not, move off VMS.

What happens if one day VSI goes bust and your auditors/security people
require all production systems to have support contracts ?

You may also be forced off VMS rather quickly if you only have the new
time-limited licences and didn't make any plans for if VSI went bust.

Simon.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
Yes, VMS was replaced in many shops, but not all shops. That's what I'm
saying above. Some shops just could not, or would not, move off VMS.

What happens if one day VSI goes bust and your auditors/security people
require all production systems to have support contracts ?

Then you fire the auditors and security people and get some people who
have a touch of common sense. Don't expect a business to shut down over
such things. Just how many people's jobs would you stop just to satisfy
your fetish for security?

The company doesn't shut down in that situation, but the non-compliant
systems (VMS) get retired as soon as possible, even if the site has
permanent VMS licences. In other words, the company moves off VMS even
if it turns out to be a very painful process.

Post by Simon Clubley
You may also be forced off VMS rather quickly if you only have the new
time-limited licences and didn't make any plans for if VSI went bust.

This is a real problem, and one VSI is going to have to address. Again,
don't expect a business, perhaps with hundreds or thousands of people to
shut down for such an artificial reason.

Unfortunately, VSI do not seem to show any interest in addressing this.

I wonder how much business it has cost them and how much it's going to
cost them simply because a customer cannot allow this situation to occur.

A business may love VMS and want to stay with it, but they are not
going to allow the collapse of a vendor to be the collapse of their
own business, even if that means moving away from VMS.

Simon.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
Yes, VMS was replaced in many shops, but not all shops. That's what I'm
saying above. Some shops just could not, or would not, move off VMS.

What happens if one day VSI goes bust and your auditors/security people
require all production systems to have support contracts ?

Then you fire the auditors and security people and get some people who
have a touch of common sense. Don't expect a business to shut down over
such things. Just how many people's jobs would you stop just to satisfy
your fetish for security?

The company doesn't shut down in that situation, but the non-compliant
systems (VMS) get retired as soon as possible, even if the site has
permanent VMS licences. In other words, the company moves off VMS even
if it turns out to be a very painful process.

I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS. "Painful" is one thing. Just won't work is another
thing entirely. The "new system" just isn't working. Customer #1 is
still trying. While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system. Seems they just signed
a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known company,
and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to threaten that deal.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Simon Clubley
You may also be forced off VMS rather quickly if you only have the new
time-limited licences and didn't make any plans for if VSI went bust.

This is a real problem, and one VSI is going to have to address. Again,
don't expect a business, perhaps with hundreds or thousands of people to
shut down for such an artificial reason.

Unfortunately, VSI do not seem to show any interest in addressing this.
I wonder how much business it has cost them and how much it's going to
cost them simply because a customer cannot allow this situation to occur.
A business may love VMS and want to stay with it, but they are not
going to allow the collapse of a vendor to be the collapse of their
own business, even if that means moving away from VMS.

On this we agree 100%.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS.  "Painful" is one thing.  Just won't work is another
thing entirely.  The "new system" just isn't working.  Customer #1 is
still trying.  While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system.  Seems they just signed
a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known company,
and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.

- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
oversold their skills
etc.etc.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS. "Painful" is one thing. Just won't work is another
thing entirely. The "new system" just isn't working. Customer #1 is
still trying. While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system. Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

This is fun ...

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Migrations are usually tricky.

It is not a migration, it is a totally new replacement.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- a huge code base

Doesn't matter

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete

Not an issue

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired

Not an issue, well, except for those running the company.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
with a 1:1 port

It is not a port.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
during the entire port making the new system a moving target

Nothing is ever static ...

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
capabilities

Totally!

Post by Arne Vajhøj
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
oversold their skills

Most likely.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
etc.etc.
Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS. "Painful" is one thing. Just won't work is another
thing entirely. The "new system" just isn't working. Customer #1 is
still trying. While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system. Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.
- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
oversold their skills
etc.etc.
Arne

In addition, the current system is not the problem. Yes, there are issues.

Erik is 79
I am 75
Bill is late 60s
Last guy is early 50s

Auditors say support for current system is too old.
Auditors say current system is running on obsolete HW (itanic).
Auditors say current system is obsolete software and language (Basic).
Auditors proposed new system, which they own.

You starting to get an idea where the real problem lies?

Auditors software has never run a company anywhere near as large.

Auditors say no insurance for old systems (this is a laugh).

[chris]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS. "Painful" is one thing. Just won't work is another
thing entirely. The "new system" just isn't working. Customer #1 is
still trying. While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system. Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.
- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
oversold their skills
etc.etc.
Arne

In addition, the current system is not the problem. Yes, there are issues.
Erik is 79
I am 75
Bill is late 60s
Last guy is early 50s
Auditors say support for current system is too old.
Auditors say current system is running on obsolete HW (itanic).
Auditors say current system is obsolete software and language (Basic).
Auditors proposed new system, which they own.
You starting to get an idea where the real problem lies?
Auditors software has never run a company anywhere near as large.
Auditors say no insurance for old systems (this is a laugh).

Fire the auditors, Sounds like a case of ignorance and fear,
leading to excessive covering of backsides...

[Dave Froble]

Post by chris

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS. "Painful" is one thing. Just won't work is another
thing entirely. The "new system" just isn't working. Customer #1 is
still trying. While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system. Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.
- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
oversold their skills
etc.etc.
Arne

In addition, the current system is not the problem. Yes, there are issues.
Erik is 79
I am 75
Bill is late 60s
Last guy is early 50s
Auditors say support for current system is too old.
Auditors say current system is running on obsolete HW (itanic).
Auditors say current system is obsolete software and language (Basic).
Auditors proposed new system, which they own.
You starting to get an idea where the real problem lies?
Auditors software has never run a company anywhere near as large.
Auditors say no insurance for old systems (this is a laugh).

Fire the auditors, Sounds like a case of ignorance and fear,
leading to excessive covering of backsides...

No, it's much worse.

Auditors could not find operational issues, but still criticized the
current system. Auditors didn't disclose that they owned the company
that has the new system they recommended. Can you read "conflict of
interest", and perhaps even "fraud"?

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS.  "Painful" is one thing.  Just won't work is another
thing entirely.  The "new system" just isn't working.  Customer #1 is
still trying.  While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system.  Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.
- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
  with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
  during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
  capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
  oversold their skills
etc.etc.

In addition, the current system is not the problem.  Yes, there are issues.
Erik is 79
I am 75
Bill is late 60s
Last guy is early 50s
Auditors say support for current system is too old.
Auditors say current system is running on obsolete HW (itanic).
Auditors say current system is obsolete software and language (Basic).
Auditors proposed new system, which they own.
You starting to get an idea where the real problem lies?

You may not like those auditors and they may be
a real PITA.

But their point is not totally off.

3/4 of support team is at retirement age.

Itanium systems are no longer being produced.

It will be difficult to hire people with VMS Basic
and Macro-32 skills.

That is a risk.

And therefore it is a problem.

It is not an urgent problem. You can buy Itanium's from IslandCo.
It does not sound like you are ready to retire.

So there is time to handle that risk.

I don't know your context but something like
the following would go a long way to mitigate
the risks:
* VSI get VMS x86-64 out in production quality supported
on one or more common VM's
* you migrate the index-sequential files / custom
files to a relational database (VMS will do fine
as host OS)
* you retire the Macro-32 and the VMS code base
becomes VMS Basic only
* [optional] you move some frontend to web - I guess
that Grails may work for you (that should probably
be on Linux)
* you hire a person below 40

The auditors recommending their own system is definitely
not un-biased advice - an I thought that auditors had gotten
wiser after Enron about both doing auditing and general consulting
for the same customer.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
I'm aware of a current attempt to move off VMS and the application
running on VMS.  "Painful" is one thing.  Just won't work is another
thing entirely.  The "new system" just isn't working.  Customer #1 is
still trying.  While not officially confirmed, word is customer #2 has
decided to stay with the old and working system.  Seems they just
signed a deal to be the North American distributor for a well known
company, and they refuse to allow new computer system problems to
threaten that deal.

Migrations are usually tricky.
- a huge code base
- maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete
- maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired
- the new technology may work better with a change of design than
  with a 1:1 port
- the business wants/needs to add new features to the old system
  during the entire port making the new system a moving target
- the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
  capabilities
- the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
  oversold their skills
etc.etc.
Arne

In addition, the current system is not the problem.  Yes, there are issues.
Erik is 79
I am 75
Bill is late 60s
Last guy is early 50s
Auditors say support for current system is too old.
Auditors say current system is running on obsolete HW (itanic).
Auditors say current system is obsolete software and language (Basic).
Auditors proposed new system, which they own.

Serious conflict of interests. Major ethics violation.
Who hired the idiots?

You starting to get an idea where the real problem lies?
Auditors software has never run a company anywhere near as large.
Auditors say no insurance for old systems (this is a laugh).

bill

[Dave Froble]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
You may not like those auditors and they may be
a real PITA.
But their point is not totally off.
3/4 of support team is at retirement age.
Itanium systems are no longer being produced.
It will be difficult to hire people with VMS Basic
and Macro-32 skills.

But easy to train them. I've taught some introductory VMS courses to
people who had never heard of it before. They all took to it readily
and appreciated the advantages over Linux. :-) I really don't see that
as a serious problem. And they are cheaper than seasoned professionals.
Sure, they won't be experts, but they can learn. No reason the same
can't apply to Basic and Macro-32 (though are there any applications
using those languages which need to be maintained, as opposed to just
running?).

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No reason the same
can't apply to Basic and Macro-32 (though are there any applications
using those languages which need to be maintained, as opposed to just
running?).

How many people have the mindset and willingness to learn an assembly
language these days, with all the extremely low-level coding it involves ?

Simon.

[chris]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No reason the same
can't apply to Basic and Macro-32 (though are there any applications
using those languages which need to be maintained, as opposed to just
running?).

How many people have the mindset and willingness to learn an assembly
language these days, with all the extremely low-level coding it involves ?
Simon.

Real time embedded here, so need to have at least some assembly and
architectural understanding for every different microprocessor. Almost
all code is in C now, but there's still some low level stuff to do
prior to calling main().

Not fluent as I may have been years ago, but the low level knowledge is
still needed...

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No reason the same
can't apply to Basic and Macro-32 (though are there any applications
using those languages which need to be maintained, as opposed to just
running?).

How many people have the mindset and willingness to learn an assembly
language these days, with all the extremely low-level coding it involves ?

Probably more than are needed. :-|

[calliet gérard]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But easy to train them. I've taught some introductory VMS courses to
people who had never heard of it before.

Very good point. And - I experienced that - because of the age of VMS it
is must more sober and it is closer to the computer science
fundamentals. So the young guys do like it, because they experience they
are doing programming and not just connecting black boxes. And, after
that, they choose the best from the two ages, proposing smart integrations.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But easy to train them. I've taught some introductory VMS courses to
people who had never heard of it before.

Very good point. And - I experienced that - because of the age of VMS it
is must more sober and it is closer to the computer science
fundamentals. So the young guys do like it, because they experience they
are doing programming and not just connecting black boxes.

https://xkcd.com/1988

:-D

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by calliet gérard

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
But easy to train them. I've taught some introductory VMS courses to
people who had never heard of it before.

Very good point. And - I experienced that - because of the age of VMS it
is must more sober and it is closer to the computer science
fundamentals. So the young guys do like it, because they experience they
are doing programming and not just connecting black boxes.

https://xkcd.com/1988
:-D

Waiting for VAXman (and others) to ROTFALHFAO. :-)

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Arne Vajhøj
You may not like those auditors and they may be
a real PITA.
But their point is not totally off.
3/4 of support team is at retirement age.
Itanium systems are no longer being produced.
It will be difficult to hire people with VMS Basic
and Macro-32 skills.

But easy to train them. I've taught some introductory VMS courses to
people who had never heard of it before. They all took to it readily
and appreciated the advantages over Linux. :-) I really don't see that
as a serious problem. And they are cheaper than seasoned professionals.
Sure, they won't be experts, but they can learn. No reason the same
can't apply to Basic and Macro-32 (though are there any applications
using those languages which need to be maintained, as opposed to just
running?).

No Macro-32 in apps, just the database, and it doesn't change.

The application(s) are written in Basic. A few pieces of Macro-32 and
C, but nothing major.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business.  One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.

Yes, SAP has ruined more than one business.  When one's business
practices provides some "edge" that makes one successful, perhaps a
Harvard Business School type might think it's possible to "go generic",
which is why we need to "nuke" the HBS.

But such systems being replaced by standard packages rarely is
what gives that edge. They just supports what gives that edge.

Let us take VSI. What will determine their success? Some items
in arbitrary order: getting VMS x86-64 out in good quality soon,
modernizing VMS over the coming decade, convincing customers
that VMS is a good solution, providing good support on VMS
etc.etc.. What will mean practically nothing for the success
of VSI: the system that handle their salary payout, the system that
keep track of the employee vacations, the system that stores their
documents, the system that stores their email etc.. So what does
VSI do for those supporting systems? They either buy a standard
solution or outsource to keep cost down.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Bill Gunshannon
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business. One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.

Yes, SAP has ruined more than one business. When one's business
practices provides some "edge" that makes one successful, perhaps a
Harvard Business School type might think it's possible to "go
generic", which is why we need to "nuke" the HBS.

But such systems being replaced by standard packages rarely is
what gives that edge. They just supports what gives that edge.

When those custom systems that support the company practices, I'd argue
they are part of that edge, and SAP usually is not.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Let us take VSI. What will determine their success? Some items
in arbitrary order: getting VMS x86-64 out in good quality soon,
modernizing VMS over the coming decade, convincing customers
that VMS is a good solution, providing good support on VMS
etc.etc.. What will mean practically nothing for the success
of VSI: the system that handle their salary payout, the system that
keep track of the employee vacations, the system that stores their
documents, the system that stores their email etc.. So what does
VSI do for those supporting systems? They either buy a standard
solution or outsource to keep cost down.

This begets a good question. Are those "standard" systems generic, or,
a customized solution that has many users?

Many years ago I was tasked with designing a payroll system. I did so,
but, the lesson was, use ADP or some such for payroll, they have custom
systems to do the job right, and with yearly changes to taxes, they
spend lots of money to keep their applications current.

I would suggest that any organization that offers services or
outsourcing (same thing) is not running generic software, but highly
customized software designed to do the required job. And that isn't SAP.

As an example, in the USA the implementation of sales tax can be
statewide, county and city wide, and even just one single town. Yeah,
it's that crazy. Nobody can keep track of all that as part of an
application. There are a few companies offering the service, and that
is what we use for our customers. Consider, the rules can change every
time the town council meets. Totally ridiculous!

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business.  One more thing I said as long as 30 years ago.

Yes, SAP has ruined more than one business.  When one's business
practices provides some "edge" that makes one successful, perhaps a
Harvard Business School type might think it's possible to "go
generic", which is why we need to "nuke" the HBS.

But such systems being replaced by standard packages rarely is
what gives that edge. They just supports what gives that edge.

When those custom systems that support the company practices, I'd argue
they are part of that edge, and SAP usually is not.

SAP is a lot of things.

But a lot of that is irrelevant for the customers.

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Let us take VSI. What will determine their success? Some items
in arbitrary order: getting VMS x86-64 out in good quality soon,
modernizing VMS over the coming decade, convincing customers
that VMS is a good solution, providing good support on VMS
etc.etc.. What will mean practically nothing for the success
of VSI: the system that handle their salary payout, the system that
keep track of the employee vacations, the system that stores their
documents, the system that stores their email etc.. So what does
VSI do for those supporting systems? They either buy a standard
solution or outsource to keep cost down.

This begets a good question.  Are those "standard" systems generic, or,
a customized solution that has many users?

There are generic systems for all of that. Most ERP systems
has a payroll module. There are generic HR systems. There are
certainly generic document and email systems.

Post by Dave Froble
Many years ago I was tasked with designing a payroll system.  I did so,
but, the lesson was, use ADP or some such for payroll, they have custom
systems to do the job right, and with yearly changes to taxes, they
spend lots of money to keep their applications current.

There is a big SaaS market for such services: ADP, SalesForce etc..
Even SAP are also doing SaaS today.

Post by Dave Froble
I would suggest that any organization that offers services or
outsourcing (same thing) is not running generic software, but highly
customized software designed to do the required job.

I think your are making an artificial division.

Company X make some software XX that unmodified can do
function ABC for thousands of different customers. They
sell a copy to each of those customers.

Company Y make some software YY that unmodified can do
function ABC for thousands of different customers. They
offer it as a service to each of those customers.

I think XX and YY are equally generic. The genericness
depends on the level of customization not on the business
model.

(YY may in fact be quite different from XX as Y may likely
want to have a single instance of YY support multiple
customers, but that is a different topic)

Post by Dave Froble
  And that isn't SAP.

SAP sell both software and service.

And to get back to the original point: if the customers
are willing to do things the SAP way, then they may
be happy. But if customers want to do things their way, then
they will end up having to pay NN or NNN million dollars
for customizations and the business case may fail to materialize.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by calliet gérard
I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

Well, you are not wrong.  If something else could replace VMS, then it
would already have done so years ago.

Uhh..  Dave...  Something did replace VMS.  Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS.  Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS.  Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business.

Often it is smarter to change the process than to change the
software.

Software customization is expensive. Initial customization
plus lift of customization when new versions has to be put in.
That is the typical disaster when switching to such packages -
instead of using the package, then the package get
replaced by a custom version of the package.

If the system in question is not the business but just a
system supporting the business, then customization provide
zero extra revenue.

Easy decision.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Dave Froble

Post by calliet gérard
I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

Well, you are not wrong. If something else could replace VMS, then
it would already have done so years ago.

Uhh.. Dave... Something did replace VMS. Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS. Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS. Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business.

Often it is smarter to change the process than to change the
software.

Yeah, and tomorrow Amazon will stop offering free shipping. And the
next day there may not be an Amazon.

I have to wonder if you understand anything about business?

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by calliet gérard
I'm continuing of thinking that VMS will be selled because of its very
specific qualities. I cannot be wrong.

Well, you are not wrong.  If something else could replace VMS, then
it would already have done so years ago.

Uhh..  Dave...  Something did replace VMS.  Actually a lot of things
replaced VMS.  Many of them were mistakes, but the fact is they did
replace VMS.  Saw it first hand at the University I worked at for 25
years.
On an interesting side note I read an article on LinkedIn today that
talked about how moving to these pre-packaged systems like SAP (or, in
the case of the University I worked at Banner) it becomes necessary to
change the way you do business to match the package you bought rather
than using an in house system designed to match the way you had been
doing your business.

Often it is smarter to change the process than to change the
software.

Yeah, and tomorrow Amazon will stop offering free shipping.  And the
next day there may not be an Amazon.

You decided to cut the text:

# If the system in question is not the business but just a
# system supporting the business, then customization provide
# zero extra revenue.

Well - delivery is a key part of Amazon business, but they will
also have a bunch of support systems.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything on
VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V, VMS
needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT people
constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in operationally", helps
to make the case for staying with VMS.

Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port. In other words, current customers might not be
representative of all potential VSI customers.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything on
VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V, VMS
needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT people
constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in operationally", helps
to make the case for staying with VMS.

Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen. So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
In other words, current customers might not be
representative of all potential VSI customers.

What's your point?

Current customers are all VMS has now and in the near future.

The majority of potential customers are most likely already using VMs.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything on
VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V, VMS
needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT people
constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in operationally", helps
to make the case for staying with VMS.

Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
In other words, current customers might not be
representative of all potential VSI customers.

What's your point?

See above.

Post by Dave Froble
Current customers are all VMS has now and in the near future.

No. In the near future, bare-metal customers could become important.
Why would any of those be a VSI customer today? At most to move to VSI
VMS on Alpha or Itanium, but that could wait until bare-metal x86 is
ready.

Post by Dave Froble
The majority of potential customers are most likely already using VMs.

I don't know. There are some big VMS shops not using VMs. (But I don't
know how many of those will go to x86.)

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

I don't look at this forum for a few months and first time I do I get
severely misquoted! What I say, and continue to say, is exactly what
customers keep telling us, "don't be different". They run everything on
VMware, VMS needs to be there, too. They run everything on Hyper-V, VMS
needs to be there, too. Seems very straightforward to us. IT people
constantly tell us whatever we can do to "fit in operationally", helps
to make the case for staying with VMS.

Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
In other words, current customers might not be
representative of all potential VSI customers.

What's your point?

See above.

Post by Dave Froble
Current customers are all VMS has now and in the near future.

No. In the near future, bare-metal customers could become important.
Why would any of those be a VSI customer today? At most to move to VSI
VMS on Alpha or Itanium, but that could wait until bare-metal x86 is
ready.

Post by Dave Froble
The majority of potential customers are most likely already using VMs.

I don't know. There are some big VMS shops not using VMs. (But I don't
know how many of those will go to x86.)

[Arne Vajhøj]

So why would anyone wait?  For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right.  But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong.  VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not.  Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work.  One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

For development work a VM is just so much more convenient.

And in the end I suspect a large number of production deployments
will end up in VM's as well.

Much fewer "hardware" configs to consider - there are a trillion
physical x86-64 hardware combinations out there - a few will
be supported - many will work but not be supported - and some
will not work.

New server CPU's typical has 16/24/32 cores. Not many will
need that much power for their VMS system. Using it all will
be a waste of resources.

Arne

[calliet gérard]

Actually, VM instances will be better for porting work.  One doesn't
need a production level computer to do porting work.

Indeed.
But there is a business aspect also. How can you pay for a change from
HPE to VSI with almost zero new functionnalities, when you sell
something which will run on x86 bare metal - because of x technical or
business constraints -? You cannot justify the investment now, and you
wait for the bare metal.

[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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

[John Dallman]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble
Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running
in a VM instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better
for porting work. One doesn't need a production level computer
to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to
learn about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on
the time when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

VMs aren't actually difficult to use. Just about everyone who works as a
system administrator knows how to set up VMs from supplied images and
start them. This is probably easier than installing an OS onto unfamiliar
bare metal.

You may well want to do some configuration of the VMS instance inside
your VM, but that's normal VMS sysadmin.

John

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by John Dallman

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble
Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running
in a VM instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better
for porting work. One doesn't need a production level computer
to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to
learn about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on
the time when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

VMs aren't actually difficult to use. Just about everyone who works as a
system administrator knows how to set up VMs from supplied images and
start them. This is probably easier than installing an OS onto unfamiliar
bare metal.
You may well want to do some configuration of the VMS instance inside
your VM, but that's normal VMS sysadmin.
John

And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.

When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.

If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, that means that I would have to have some other
OS running on the machine in order to install VirtualBox? I can see it
working fine in terms of logging in and getting to the DCL prompt. But
what about things like clustering (not between instances of VirtualBox
on the same hardware, but between different physical machines), HBVS,
and so on?

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, that means that I would have to have some other
OS running on the machine in order to install VirtualBox? I can see it
working fine in terms of logging in and getting to the DCL prompt. But
what about things like clustering (not between instances of VirtualBox
on the same hardware, but between different physical machines), HBVS,
and so on?

"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.

"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.

In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
shown having 10 nodes:
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)

This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, that means that I would have to have some other
OS running on the machine in order to install VirtualBox?  I can see it
working fine in terms of logging in and getting to the DCL prompt.  But
what about things like clustering (not between instances of VirtualBox
on the same hardware, but between different physical machines), HBVS,
and so on?

"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

The same webinar handouts also says about the 9.1 release:

"9.1 overview – what to expect
• Bare metal support (limited)
– DL380 Gen9 and Gen10 with fibre channel shared storage and Smart Array
– A “buyer’s guide” will be provided
• ISO installation (no more appliances)"

Then, in a side note to that, it says:

"Didn't quite make it into 9.1 (some driver issues) and will be
made available just as soon as ready, most likely 9.1-A"

And from another page in that PDF it seems as 9.1-A could
be out in "mid August"...

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

"9.1 overview – what to expect
• Bare metal support (limited)
  – DL380 Gen9 and Gen10 with fibre channel shared storage and Smart Array
  – A “buyer’s guide” will be provided
• ISO installation (no more appliances)"
"Didn't quite make it into 9.1 (some driver issues) and will be
made available just as soon as ready, most likely 9.1-A"
And from another page in that PDF it seems as 9.1-A could
be out in "mid August"...

Which is why VM is going to be so popular.

DL380 Gen9 and Gen10 may be nice systems.

But there are just so many different systems out there. Most will
prefer to go VM instead such specific models.

And even when VSI adds more HPE and Dell servers it will be
a rather limited fraction of all that is out there.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.

I am not "everyone"

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

Apart from VMS, I have an eBook reader (which runs Android under the
hood, though not accessible to the user) and an iPad. I don't think
that VirtualBox runs on iPadOS, and even if it did, I don't know how I
would connect peripherals.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.

Some people prefer separate, as opposed to shared, disks.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

I'm sure the cluster is not the problem; I'm wondering more about HBVS
with members on different nodes (maybe it works; I don't know).

[Phil Howell]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.

I am not "everyone"

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

Apart from VMS, I have an eBook reader (which runs Android under the
hood, though not accessible to the user) and an iPad. I don't think
that VirtualBox runs on iPadOS, and even if it did, I don't know how I
would connect peripherals.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.

Some people prefer separate, as opposed to shared, disks.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

I'm sure the cluster is not the problem; I'm wondering more about HBVS
with members on different nodes (maybe it works; I don't know).

But we know your wife has a MacBook!
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

:)

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Phil Howell
But we know your wife has a MacBook!

Indeed. One of my sons tells me that it is too old to get the latest
update.

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Phil Howell
But we know your wife has a MacBook!

Indeed. One of my sons tells me that it is too old to get the latest
update.

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...

*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phil Howell
But we know your wife has a MacBook!

Indeed.  One of my sons tells me that it is too old to get the latest
update.

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

If your going to ask that then why not ask "Why do you need to run
VMS at home at all?" "Why even have a VMS Hobbyist Program?"


bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox

Post by Phil Howell
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

Maybe he likes to play with VMS cluster.

Anyway - there should not be a problem running 3 VM's with
VMS On that MacBook.

And the need for spares should more or less go away for hobbyists
with commodity HW / VM support. There is not really any point
in stocking large number of x86-64 machines in case one break.

Arne

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox

Post by Phil Howell
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

Maybe he likes to play with VMS cluster.
Anyway - there should not be a problem running 3 VM's with
VMS On that MacBook.
And the need for spares should more or less go away for hobbyists
with commodity HW / VM support. There is not really any point
in stocking large number of x86-64 machines in case one break.
Arne

Or old Storageworks cabinets and disks. :-)

Personally I'd like to be able to run an VMS instance on my
Synology NAS box. I have that box powered on 24/7 anyway.
Now, I guess that my current one based on a "Pentium N3710"
is not enough for VMS. Might need a newer one. But having an
VMS instance on one of these would be nice...

https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/feature/virtual_machine_manager

Seems as Synology uses KVM for the VM tools...

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox

Post by Phil Howell
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

Maybe he likes to play with VMS cluster.
Anyway - there should not be a problem running 3 VM's with
VMS On that MacBook.
And the need for spares should more or less go away for hobbyists
with commodity HW / VM support. There is not really any point
in stocking large number of x86-64 machines in case one break.

Or old Storageworks cabinets and disks. :-)

Yes, I have enough to last me until I die, and will be using them as
long as I use Alpha.

x86 spares might be easier to source, but a) I would need at least a few
to last me until I could source more and b) of course only those which
could run bare-metal VMS would be suitable (but based on the Python
script posted here a while back, that should be many (most? all?)).

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Phil Howell
But we know your wife has a MacBook!

Indeed. One of my sons tells me that it is too old to get the latest
update.

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

Because a cluster is fun. The main reason, though, is redundancy, just
like for other folks. I receive email on my cluster. With clustering
and HBVS (members connected to different nodes), then if one node goes
down, or a disk fails, then things continue. It's not a hobbyist
cluster in the sense of "boot it up, get to the DCL prompt, and play
around". Rather, I use it for most things for which other people use
other computers for similar stuff.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Phil Howell
But we know your wife has a MacBook!

Indeed. One of my sons tells me that it is too old to get the latest
update.

Post by Phil Howell
You could buy her a new M1 MacBook and use the old one for virtualbox
I'd call that a win-win

But I would need at least half a dozen: three nodes is the minimum for a
cluster, then spares.

You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

Because a cluster is fun. The main reason, though, is redundancy, just
like for other folks. I receive email on my cluster. With clustering
and HBVS (members connected to different nodes), then if one node goes
down, or a disk fails, then things continue. It's not a hobbyist
cluster in the sense of "boot it up, get to the DCL prompt, and play
around". Rather, I use it for most things for which other people use
other computers for similar stuff.

So then, you are not a hobbyist? Do you have regular licenses for all
those systems? Are you paying for support?

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Dave Froble
So then, you are not a hobbyist? Do you have regular licenses for all
those systems? Are you paying for support?

I'm sure that my use falls under the term "hobbyist"; it is strictly
non-commercial and for fun, not even, say, anything to do with a
non-profit organization or whatever. There was some discussion of this
back in the day, and I always truthfully answer the questions when
applying for a hobbyist license.

I also bought a commercial license, with the one Alpha which I bought
new.

I'm not an expert on commercial licenses, but I don't think that buying
a license required one to also buy support. In any case, it was bought
through an official DEC reseller/partner so they are responsible if they
forgot to demand anything of me. :-)

I consider reading usenet (which I do on VMS) a hobby.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
You might have described it earlier, but...
*Why* do you need to run a cluster in your home/hobbyist environment?

If your going to ask that then why not ask "Why do you need to run
VMS at home at all?" "Why even have a VMS Hobbyist Program?"

Or quote (out of context) Ken Olsen: Why would anyone ever need a
COMPUTER in their HOME? :-D

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Anyway - there should not be a problem running 3 VM's with
VMS On that MacBook.

Right, but there is then no redundancy.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Anyway - there should not be a problem running 3 VM's with
VMS On that MacBook.

Right, but there is then no redundancy.

No.

But you can test it by taking down one VM.

If the physical box fails then all is out. But does that matter for
hobbyist usage??

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, that means that I would have to have some other
OS running on the machine in order to install VirtualBox?  I can see it
working fine in terms of logging in and getting to the DCL prompt.  But
what about things like clustering (not between instances of VirtualBox
on the same hardware, but between different physical machines), HBVS,
and so on?

"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

Two things:

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment. Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows. For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have. This could be a deal breaker. Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

And that is another issue. In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

Not really.

Development environments are quite different from production environments.

Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.

Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat
distinct.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
VMS.

But most people will have something else than VMS running
today.

We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.

But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.

Arne

[Chris Townley]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

Not really.
Development environments are quite different from production environments.
Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.
Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat
distinct.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
VMS.
But most people will have something else than VMS running
today.
We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.
Arne

Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Chris Townley

Post by Arne Vajhøj
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.

Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?

I think they already do.

I just mentioned VMWare because I think they are bigger
market wise.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Chris Townley

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

Not really.
Development environments are quite different from production
environments.
Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.
Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat
distinct.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
VMS.
But most people will have something else than VMS running
today.
We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.
Arne

Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?

I didn't include KVM in my comments because I have no experience
with it. But, it also suffers from some of the same potential
problems and costs. Another OS and another required skillset.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Chris Townley

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.

Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?

I didn't include KVM in my comments because I have no experience
with it.  But, it also suffers from some of the same potential
problems and costs.  Another OS and another required skillset.

Just another option.

VMWare has the biggest marketshare.

But there are also Hyper-V, KVM, Xen etc..

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Chris Townley

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.

Are not they planning on supporting KVM as well?

I didn't include KVM in my comments because I have no experience
with it.  But, it also suffers from some of the same potential
problems and costs.  Another OS and another required skillset.

Just another option.
VMWare has the biggest marketshare.
But there are also Hyper-V, KVM, Xen etc..

I have used Hyper-V extensively, too. It requires rather deep
and extensive MS Windows knowledge. And a complete and fully
functional Windows environment. Something frequently attacked
here by VMS users. :-)

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

Not really.
Development environments are quite different from production environments.
Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.
Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat
distinct.

You are looking at it from the standpoint of features I am looking
at from the standpoint reliability and usability. As you might
imagine at this point, I was not impressed with VirtualBox as
compared to things like VMWare and Hyper-V.

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
VMS.
But most people will have something else than VMS running
today.
We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.

My grandson uses ChromeOS. I really don't expect he knows how to
administer it. Running VirtualBox is not in a production environment
is not just a user task.

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I do not see why clusters and HBVS would not work in an VirtualBox
environment. Not with physical shared disks of course, but over
the network.
In the PDF from the last Webinar there is a SHOW CLUSTER output
2 nodes with V9.1 (x86 in a VM)
2 nodes with 8.4-1H1 (older IA64)
2 nodes with 8.4-2L2 (should be Alpha, I think)
4 nodes with 8.4-2L3 (latest IA64)
This might use some other VM environment than VirtualBox, but from
the VMS point of view that should not matter, as far as I understand.

And that is another issue.  In order to run VMS in a production
environment you will now have to also run something like VMWare
in a production environment with all the associated costs of doing
it.

Pulling in VMWare or similar just to run VMS would certainly
have significant cost.
But most companies already have that in place: VMWare
and/or IaaS cloud. And it will be a cost reduction to move
VMS into the same environment that everything else is
running on.

Not necessarily, but you are free to continue to believe that.
In the 25 years I worked at the University I watched us go from
an all bare-metal environment to a hybrid with a number of VM
Hypervisors. I had to learn a lot. But, I'm a geek. I enjoyed
playing with new toys. I have worked in places where making a
programmer learn a new language would result in their leaving
instead. Like it or not, VM's are not the ultimate answer to
everyone's desires. I still prefer real hardware to virtualization
when it comes to the VAX and that isn't just with VMS.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
"Everyone" has a laptop supporting VirtualBox.
"VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and Solaris hosts..."

1. Unless it has changed considerably from the last time I ran it for
anything, VirtualBox is unsuited for any kind of production environment.
And development of software intended for use in a production environment
is also production.

Not really.
Development environments are quite different from production
environments.
Windows 7 or 10 vs Windows Server 2016 or 2019 is very clear.
Ubuntu or whatever vs RHEL or CentOS / Rocky Linux is also somewhat
distinct.

You are looking at it from the standpoint of features I am looking
at from the standpoint reliability and usability.  As you might
imagine at this point, I was not impressed with VirtualBox as
compared to things like VMWare and Hyper-V.

Regarding reliability then they are targetting different
markets.

VirtualBox is a development desktop thing.

VMWare and Hyper-V is a production server thing.

Regarding usability then VirtualBox seems pretty nice to me.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
2, Many people here have expressed their desire to work in a VMS
environment.  Not Linux, not Mac and certainly not Windows.  For
one thing, it requires the acquisition of knowledge they may not
wish to have.  This could be a deal breaker.  Management may see
it as: "If I have to run Linux in order to run VMS, why am I
running VMS?"

If you develop for or study VMS then you certainly need
VMS.
But most people will have something else than VMS running
today.
We all know about one exception. But I think that is an exception.

My grandson uses ChromeOS.  I really don't expect he knows how to
administer it.  Running VirtualBox is not in a production environment
is not just a user task.

VirtualBox should not be used in a production environment.

VMWare (or KVM or Hyper-V) should and such products
require a bit more skills.

But it is skills that most system admins have today.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
Like it or not, VM's are not the ultimate answer to
everyone's desires.

True.

VM's are old technology.

Today it is containers that are hot.

But since VMS does not support containers then we will have
to do VM's.

:-)

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Development environments are quite different from production environments.

Everyone has a development environment. The lucky ones have an
additional environment which is production only. :-)

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, that means that I would have to have some other
OS running on the machine in order to install VirtualBox?

Yes. VirtualBox is a type 2 hypervisor (not type 1) so you need
a host OS.

For development that is often convenient.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I can see it
working fine in terms of logging in and getting to the DCL prompt. But
what about things like clustering (not between instances of VirtualBox
on the same hardware, but between different physical machines), HBVS,
and so on?

I don't see any difference from physical HW in that regard.

The VM is on the network and can access other VM's on same host,
VM's on different hosts and physical systems.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by John Dallman

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble
Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running
in a VM instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better
for porting work. One doesn't need a production level computer
to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to
learn about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on
the time when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

VMs aren't actually difficult to use. Just about everyone who works as a
system administrator knows how to set up VMs from supplied images and
start them. This is probably easier than installing an OS onto unfamiliar
bare metal.
You may well want to do some configuration of the VMS instance inside
your VM, but that's normal VMS sysadmin.
John

And anyway, most VMS sites already have the VM admins in other groups
that does the VM config and just present you with the VM environment.
When the VM is ready there should be very few differences from a bare
metal VMS installation.
If you are a single person shop, use VirtualBox. Just as easy as any
PC application to install and in it self way easier then to run VMS.

Well, I would not go quite that far. I did have a few issues. Maybe
just personal issues. I tried it out, but, I'm not using it today,
because I didn't need the extra effort. I will most likely use it, or
some VM, for initial porting work. As for production, I just don't
know, yet.

Then again, maybe I'm just lazy ...

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by John Dallman

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble
Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running
in a VM instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better
for porting work. One doesn't need a production level computer
to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to
learn about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on
the time when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

VMs aren't actually difficult to use. Just about everyone who works as a
system administrator

As a Linux system administrator?

Post by John Dallman
knows how to set up VMs from supplied images and
start them. This is probably easier than installing an OS onto unfamiliar
bare metal.
You may well want to do some configuration of the VMS instance inside
your VM, but that's normal VMS sysadmin.

[calliet gérard]

Post by John Dallman

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble
Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running
in a VM instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better
for porting work. One doesn't need a production level computer
to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to
learn about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on
the time when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

VMs aren't actually difficult to use. Just about everyone who works as a
system administrator knows how to set up VMs from supplied images and
start them. This is probably easier than installing an OS onto unfamiliar
bare metal.
You may well want to do some configuration of the VMS instance inside
your VM, but that's normal VMS sysadmin.
John

Just today:

I had installed on my laptop an eak 9.0 on a virtual box. It worked.

Today I tried it: VMS said your CPU has not the XSAVE feature, I cannot
boot.

Going in a cmd window, pythoning the vmscheck.py

It says: you have the XSAVE feature

Googling: "it's because you have the Hyper-V feature enabled, disable it
and virtual box will have the XSAVE feature" (bcdedit /set
hypervisorlaunchtype off)

Yes: now I have the XSAVE feature in my Oracle VM

Why? You know it: because there has been in between a windows update
which switched the hypervisorlaunchtype

Summary: learning curve for VMs is not trivial, stability with VMs has
to be inspected

It's a brave new world. And I do like that, anyway. But don't say it's
the panacea.

[Craig A. Berry]

Post by calliet gérard
Summary: learning curve for VMs is not trivial,

It's trivial compared to wrestling with the Integrity server console.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Craig A. Berry

Post by calliet gérard
Summary: learning curve for VMs is not trivial,

It's trivial compared to wrestling with the Integrity server console.

You got that right !!!

Or, maybe I'm just lazy ...

[Arne Vajhøj]

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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I don't see the big problem.

If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.

If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Dave Froble

Current customers presumably.  There are probably folks waiting in
the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait?  For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right.  But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong.  VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not.  Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work.  One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I don't see the big problem.
If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.
If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.

I have been following this VM vs. bare-metal discussion (or is it an
argument?) Some people here think it is a no-brainer, but that isn't
really true. People tend to care about their environment. Doesn't
make them wrong just different. Even if others don't see the problem
there may be real reasons behind their choices. Dave likes to do his
programming in BASIC. I have no doubt the job could be done in Pascal,
C or maybe even COBOL (based on what I think the program actually does).
Does that make his choice of COBOL wrong? This is kinda like going to
a bunch of Mainframers who use Unisys 2200's and telling them they
really should be using Big Blue.

May sound silly to some here, but this one item could be important to
others and may even result in some further erosion of the VMS world.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
I don't see the big problem.
If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.
If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.

I have been following this VM vs. bare-metal discussion (or is it an
argument?)  Some people here think it is a no-brainer, but that isn't
really true.  People tend to care about their environment.  Doesn't
make them wrong just different.  Even if others don't see the problem
there may be real reasons behind their choices.  Dave likes to do his
programming in BASIC.  I have no doubt the job could be done in Pascal,
C or maybe even COBOL (based on what I think the program actually does).
Does that make his choice of COBOL wrong?  This is kinda like going to
a bunch of Mainframers who use Unisys 2200's and telling them they
really should be using Big Blue.
May sound silly to some here, but this one item could be important to
others and may even result in some further erosion of the VMS world.

VSI is not forcing anyone.

For VAX/Alpha/Itanium it was: you pick one of the possible
5 hardware models (out of 5 models with that CPU)

With x86-64 it will be: you pick either a VM or one of the
possible 5 hardware models (out of 50000 models with
that CPU).

At that level then it is just another option. Those that
really want HW can buy an expensive piece of HW like
they always did. The rest have an alternative.

And I think most will pick the alternative: a VM.

Corporate IT teams will really prefer VMWare VM's over
physical HW.

Developers/hobbyists will like the ability to create
a new system in minutes on their PC.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I don't see the big problem.
If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.
If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.

I have been following this VM vs. bare-metal discussion (or is it an
argument?) Some people here think it is a no-brainer, but that isn't
really true. People tend to care about their environment. Doesn't
make them wrong just different. Even if others don't see the problem
there may be real reasons behind their choices. Dave likes to do his
programming in BASIC. I have no doubt the job could be done in Pascal,
C or maybe even COBOL (based on what I think the program actually does).
Does that make his choice of COBOL wrong? This is kinda like going to
a bunch of Mainframers who use Unisys 2200's and telling them they
really should be using Big Blue.
May sound silly to some here, but this one item could be important to
others and may even result in some further erosion of the VMS world.
bill

I don't understand the argument, and yeah, it sounds like an argument to me.

VMS will run on "bare metal", at least selected systems, according to
VSI. So what is the problem, each user will choose their option(s).
All supporting running on a VM does is give users more choices, not less.

At least one thing a VM will do is let someone test with VMS prior to
acquiring that "specific HW".

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Dave Froble
VMS will run on "bare metal", at least selected systems, according to
VSI. So what is the problem, each user will choose their option(s).
All supporting running on a VM does is give users more choices, not less.

That it will run on bare metal one day was always clear. Perhaps the
fear is that, by concentrating on VMs, that day is moving further away.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I don't see the big problem.
If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.
If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.
Arne

I figured that I should be able to have a system running Virtualbox with
an instance of all/most older versions of WEENDOZE available. XP worked
fine. I think I might have gotten W95 running, don't remember, but
WEENDOZE 2000 didn't happen. The major issues was the devices required
to install, for 2000 it required floppy disks. Probably doable, but I
didn't figure it out, guessing it was just me being the problem. Or
just lazy.

What I did accomplish was to convince myself that I could get a VMS
instance that is intended to run on Virtualbox up and running with
little effort, and that was the objective.

[Dave Froble]

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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I played with Virtualbox some time ago. Not to run VMS, just to learn a
bit about running WEENDOZE instances. Took a few hours, not days or
weeks. You make it sound like a major effort. It is not.

So yes, I'd expect people to use a VM, if that got them any advantages.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

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)
Current customers presumably. There are probably folks waiting in the
wings, maybe until VMS runs on bare-metal x86, before they consider
whether to port.

VSI has said this will happen.

Right.

Post by Dave Froble
So why would anyone wait? For today,
VMS on x86 is the future.

Right. But if people want to port their application to bare-metal x86,
few if any will start before that bare-metal x86 is available.

Now that is just plain wrong. VMS is VMS, regardless if running in a VM
instance, or not. Actually, VM instances will be better for porting
work. One doesn't need a production level computer to do porting work.

Sure, but do you expect people with no previous VM experience to learn
about VMs just to port VMS so that they have a head start on the time
when VMS doesn't need a VM on x86?

I don't see the big problem.
If we are talking about a corporate environment, then you request
the number of VM with given specs and the VMWare guru do the
work.
If we are talking about developer/hobbyist usage, then one
download some VM software, install it, start it, choose
create new VM, specify specs, save and start. It is really
no big deal, less than hour, anybody outside the "I can't find
the ANY key on the keyboard" segment can do it.

That assumes that one has and maintains non-VMS systems.

[calliet gérard]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
In other words, current customers might not be
representative of all potential VSI customers.

Another good point.
The big issue is that VSI has not yet tried to evaluate its complete
market, which can be very different of what can be seen from the
shrinking center business of HP legacy. HP did only a one to one
strategy with big customers, and let die all the others.
And yes big customers needs can be very different froms small companies
needs.
And yes, the use of VMS by small companies where the VMS server is the
center of the business (not at all like Mr amazon data center) is not
always with vitualization. And yes, they are waiting to bare metal x86
to begin their port.
And - snip - there are been mistakes in the 80s. One important mistake
was: because we do extraordinary things - it was right - we don't have
to inquiry what are the real needs of our potential customers. I'm not
an economist, but it seems the term for that is: offer politic. It was
the parangon of an offer politic.
VSI was wise enought to correct its first politic - nothing for alpha, I
remember - and they can see the alpha market is important. Our new ceo
could be wise enought and do a complete inquiry, large, about the real
complete market - yes it is like archeology - for VMS. And about the
real pace for evolution they have to sustain for - all - their customers.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?

Can't see that the technical background matters that much
on that "level". As long as he is a good leader in general.

You are correct Jan-Erik. It would have been more accurate for me
to say "DEC culture knowledge" instead of "VMS background".
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?

The 1975 - 1995 era is not coming back.

The IT world is very different today and the it seems better that the
new CEO have the right culture for the future than of the past.

He needs to have:
- general leadership capabilities in a technology company of VSI size
- broad understanding of the IT industry and strategic directions
- understanding of the type of customers that use VMS today and the
type of customers that may switch to VMS within the next decade if
everything goes well

VMS knowledge and DEC 35 years ago knowledge seems irrelevant.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Simon Clubley
What I was really trying to ask is how much does he know about the
DEC culture so that he can understand what VSI's customers might
expect both of him and of VSI ?

The 1975 - 1995 era is not coming back.
The IT world is very different today and the it seems better that the
new CEO have the right culture for the future than of the past.
- general leadership capabilities in a technology company of VSI size
- broad understanding of the IT industry and strategic directions
- understanding of the type of customers that use VMS today and the
type of customers that may switch to VMS within the next decade if
everything goes well
VMS knowledge and DEC 35 years ago knowledge seems irrelevant.

That's because you are not looking at this in the right way Arne.
An excellent example is the utter disaster area that are the new licences.
Today, it seems acceptable to some people to pay for online services
and online cloud access on an ongoing basis and then lose access to
all your data if you do not keep up the payments

That concept is not particular new.

What happened in 1981 if you stopped paying your electric bill.

I can tell you: the electric company would shut off electricity and
you would loose access to your data.

or if there is
some loss of service disaster that you are now powerless to fix yourself.

Well in 1981 you may have called DEC and they would send a technician
to look at the problem while in 2021 you call Amazon and they will
have their technician look at the problem.

A manager or CEO raised with only that knowledge and mindset would never
understand why this could be a problem for some people - after all
everyone they read about in their own circles is apparently doing
the same thing.
A person raised with the DEC culture would understand why the customers
would scream bloody murder if you imposed such a thing (which is exactly
what has happened with the time limited licences).
They would understand that stability and uptime are the most important
things to those customers

You may have missed it, but in todays world the availability
of IT systems is much more important than it used to be. The
CEO, the board, the auditors etc. all have focus on that.

and that it is totally unacceptable to their
customers to have systems that could fail at the end of the current
licence period if VSI goes bust.

I think there is general agreement on that there is a problem.

The new VSI licences have clearly been created by people who only
understand the new online subscription model and didn't understand
why this would turn out to be such a massive problem for their
traditional DEC mission critical customer base.

The problem is that there is no traditional DEC mission critical
customer base.

There are practically no customers willing to pay what they
paid DEC 40 years ago.

What we got are two categories:

"the cry babies" - we have a problem and we want VSI to deliver DEC 1981
service at 10% of what DEC charged back then

"the rest" - we have a problem - the world has changed, so the solution
need to change as well, but there must be a solution providing
customers assurance at a reasonable cost and VSI a reasonable revenue
stream

DEC had a way of doing things and of selling products in a certain way
that met the requirements of their customers. If VSI wants to sell to
people raised with that culture, then they need to explain things and
sell things with that culture in mind.
To do that, they need to understand that culture.
_That_ directly impacts on VSI's profits and viability right here in 2021.

If they tried implementing DEC pricing then 90% of customers would be
gone in 3 years.

Arne

[Lee Gleason]

Post by Simon Clubley
Probably old news to some people here, but I've just seen that VSI
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2021-07-09-key-managers/
Anyone know anything about him and how much VMS background he has ?
Simon.

Enough of this pointless back and forth about VM's vs bare metal, and
permanent licenses vs. subscriptions.

It's time to get the really important question out there.

How does this new guy feel about hobby licenses/new releases for VAX/VMs?

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
***@gmail.com

[Robert A. Brooks]

  How does this new guy feel about hobby licenses/new releases for VAX/VMs?

We can only issue licenses (hobby or commercial) for a version of VMS that
we've produced.

We have no plans to produce VMS for the VAX.

[Lee Gleason]

Post by Robert A. Brooks

   How does this new guy feel about hobby licenses/new releases for
VAX/VMs?

We can only issue licenses (hobby or commercial) for a version of VMS that
we've produced.
We have no plans to produce VMS for the VAX.

In the words of a noted philospher of decades past...
"It's a joke, son....you're supposed to laugh!"

--

Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
***@comcast.net

[Robert A. Brooks]

  In the words of a noted philospher of decades past...
"It's a joke, son....you're supposed to laugh!"

Yeah. I was somewhat surprised that *you* were asking this question, but
sometimes it's better to just play it straight . . .

[Lee Gleason]

   In the words of a noted philospher of decades past...
"It's a joke, son....you're supposed to laugh!"

 Yeah.  I was somewhat surprised that *you* were asking this question, but
sometimes it's better to just play it straight . . .

HA! Just trying to inject a little levity into what's become a deadly
serious newsgroup...

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
***@comcast.net

[calliet gérard]

Post by Lee Gleason

   In the words of a noted philospher of decades past...
"It's a joke, son....you're supposed to laugh!"

  Yeah.  I was somewhat surprised that *you* were asking this
question, but
sometimes it's better to just play it straight . . .

HA! Just trying to inject a little levity into what's become a deadly
serious newsgroup...
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants

I had a dream: VSI founding with HPE, and with the help of the simh
community, and with the enthousiasm of white hair geeks from c.o.v. and
some international museum a foundation of preservation of memory of
computer science, innovating by producing an alive musuem, where old
things have a second life (like bringing back mamouth from dna). The
foundation could help VSI to host a reactivation of VAX/VMS.

Yes, just a joke. We are a lot more serious than that.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Lee Gleason
How does this new guy feel about hobby licenses/new releases for VAX/VMs?

It doesn't matter because VSI cannot license older VAX releases and VSI
will never create a new VAX release.