VSI has a new CEO

602 views
Skip to first unread message

Simon Clubley

unread,
Aug 1, 2021, 8:12:09 PMAug 1
to
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.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

Jan-Erik Söderholm

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 2:04:04 AMAug 2
to
Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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.
>

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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 6:41:06 AMAug 2
to
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

--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Jan-Erik Söderholm

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 7:38:53 AMAug 2
to
Den 2021-08-02 kl. 12:41, skrev calliet gérard:
> Le 02/08/2021 à 08:04, Jan-Erik Söderholm a écrit :
>> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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"

Simon Clubley

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 8:08:38 AMAug 2
to
On 2021-08-02, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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 ?
>>
>
> 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 ?

Jan-Erik Söderholm

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 9:08:02 AMAug 2
to
Den 2021-08-02 kl. 14:08, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2021-08-02, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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 ?
>>>
>>
>> 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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 9:26:55 AMAug 2
to
Le 02/08/2021 à 13:38, Jan-Erik Söderholm a écrit :
> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 12:41, skrev calliet gérard:
>> Le 02/08/2021 à 08:04, Jan-Erik Söderholm a écrit :
>>> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 9:46:42 AMAug 2
to
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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 10:09:58 AMAug 2
to
On 8/2/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-02, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 02:12, skrev 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 ?
>>>
>>
>> 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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 10:13:03 AMAug 2
to
On 8/2/2021 9:46 AM, calliet gérard wrote:
> Le 02/08/2021 à 15:07, Jan-Erik Söderholm a écrit :
>> Den 2021-08-02 kl. 14:08, skrev Simon Clubley:
>>> On 2021-08-02, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.

> 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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 12:31:40 PMAug 2
to
The world you didn't notice is "transposition". I'm not sufficiently
ignorant to think the 80s and now are the same thing.

But I do think essential issues are generaly appearing and re-appearing
as cycles. Example: one day we "concentrate", after that we
"distribute", and after that we "concentrate". The "new" concept of edge
computing, for example, which says "the power of computation has to be
near the place the information is produced", is in the category of
"distribute" - and perhaps Atom and VMS and edge computing is a real
future for VMS -. The hyper data center for cloud are in the category of
"concentrate"...

The ideas we have to extract of our experiences is the way, in specific
contexts, production of good concepts had emerged. Which explains how
and why systems survive and others die.

To be able to do that, you need a general culture AND a very acute
knowledge of the specific system you work for. So: the question of Simon
- which you mention for you as the third one - seems to me the
important one.

Because when you choose a ceo, you don't choose a plumer, and not an
ignorant of IT industry, the question from Simon remains for me the one
which makes the difference.

Clair Grant

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 12:43:45 PMAug 2
to
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.

calliet gérard

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 1:31:27 PMAug 2
to
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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 1:53:07 PMAug 2
to
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 or if there is
some loss of service disaster that you are now powerless to fix yourself.

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 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.

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.

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.

Simon Clubley

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 1:57:34 PMAug 2
to
On 2021-08-02, calliet gérard <gerard....@pia-sofer.fr> wrote:
>
> 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...

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 2:53:35 PMAug 2
to
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.


--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Bill Gunshannon

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 6:56:06 PMAug 2
to
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

unread,
Aug 2, 2021, 10:11:27 PMAug 2
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 8:07:01 AMAug 3
to
On 2021-08-02, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/2/21 2:53 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>> 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.

Arne Vajhøj

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 10:53:59 AMAug 3
to
On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
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


Arne Vajhøj

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 11:03:58 AMAug 3
to
On 8/2/2021 10:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 12:43:38 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-02, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/2/21 2:53 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>>> 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 ?

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?

> 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.

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 12:56:51 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 11:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 10:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> 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.

> 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!

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 12:59:15 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 10:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/2/21 2:53 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2021 1:31 PM, calliet gérard wrote:
>>>> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:24:04 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 12:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 10:53 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/2/21 2:53 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2021 1:31 PM, calliet gérard wrote:
>>>>> 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

Simon Clubley

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:41:05 PMAug 3
to
On 2021-08-03, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-08-02, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

>> 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.

Arne Vajhøj

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:42:54 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 12:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 11:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 10:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2021 6:56 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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)

>   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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:57:36 PMAug 3
to
On 8/2/2021 1:53 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-02, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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


Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 3:01:56 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 1:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-03, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-02, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.

>>> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 3:22:14 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 3:01 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 5:46:33 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 3:22 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 3:01 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> 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 ...

> Migrations are usually tricky.

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

> - a huge code base

Doesn't matter

> - maybe documentation is lacking/obsolete

Not an issue

> - maybe many of the people knowing the system best has left/retired

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

> - the new technology may work better with a change of design than
> with a 1:1 port

It is not a port.

> - 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 ...

> - the sales guys for the new technology may have oversold its
> capabilities

Totally!

> - the sales guys for the team doing the migration may have
> oversold their skills

Most likely.

> etc.etc.
>
> Arne

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 5:57:54 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 3:22 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
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).

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 6:31:31 PMAug 3
to
In article <ad2f5f6a-3a5e-4ec1...@googlegroups.com>,
Clair Grant <clairg...@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

chris

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 6:41:41 PMAug 3
to
Fire the auditors, Sounds like a case of ignorance and fear,
leading to excessive covering of backsides...


Arne Vajhøj

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 7:31:17 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 5:57 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 3:22 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/3/2021 3:01 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 7:57:06 PMAug 3
to
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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 10:43:12 PMAug 3
to
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"?

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 10:57:06 PMAug 3
to
This shit happens all the time Bill. They never learn. They just pay
any fines, judgements, and such, and keep right on doing what they do.

> Who hired the idiots?

Well, that is some of the problem. You may have read some of my posts
from the past about:

Knowledgeable person builds a successful company ..
Kids are good at spending Dad's money ..
Time for Dad to retire, now kids have to run the company ..
Kids don't have a clue, never having participated in company ..
Accountants are usually close to those running the company ..
Kids ask accountants ..
Clueless accountants suggest large accounting/consulting company ..

You ever knew a consulting company to tell a customer they are doing
fine? No way. They want to get their foot in the door, then bash the
door down and take customer for all they can.

>>
>> 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

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 11:03:12 PMAug 3
to
On 8/3/2021 6:31 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <ad2f5f6a-3a5e-4ec1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Clair Grant <clairg...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 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.

> 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)

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 3:40:51 AMAug 4
to
In article <secjk1$1ts$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
<ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> 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?).

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 3:44:13 AMAug 4
to
In article <sed01d$apv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >> 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.

> 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.

> > In other words, current customers might not be
> > representative of all potential VSI customers.
>
> What's your point?

See above.

> 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.

> 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.)

Simon Clubley

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 8:23:58 AMAug 4
to
On 2021-08-04, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>
> 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 ?

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 8:41:55 AMAug 4
to
In article <see0sr$km$2...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> On 2021-08-04, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
> >
> > 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

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 11:34:34 AMAug 4
to
Le 04/08/2021 à 09:40, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> 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.

--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

calliet gérard

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 11:54:36 AMAug 4
to
Le 04/08/2021 à 00:31, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> 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.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 11:56:28 AMAug 4
to
In article <imvqc8...@mid.individual.net>,
=?UTF-8?Q?calliet_gérard?= <gerard....@pia-sofer.fr> writes:

> Le 04/08/2021 à 09:40, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> > 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)

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 11:58:00 AMAug 4
to
In article <seedb9$1rsr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
writes:

> In article <imvqc8...@mid.individual.net>,
> =?UTF-8?Q?calliet_gérard?= <gerard....@pia-sofer.fr> writes:
>
> > Le 04/08/2021 à 09:40, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
> > > 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. :-)

chris

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 5:58:08 PMAug 4
to
On 08/04/21 13:23, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-04, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)<hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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...

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 7:22:20 PMAug 4
to
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.

Dave Froble

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 7:27:21 PMAug 4
to
On 8/4/2021 3:44 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <sed01d$apv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> 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.

>>> In other words, current customers might not be
>>> representative of all potential VSI customers.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> See above.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 7:39:37 PMAug 4
to
On 8/4/2021 7:26 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 3:44 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <sed01d$apv$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> 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

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 2:12:32 AMAug 5
to
Le 05/08/2021 à 01:26, Dave Froble a écrit :
> 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)

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 4:09:58 AMAug 5
to
In article <sef7om$i74$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >>> 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.
> >
> >> 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

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 4:50:53 AMAug 5
to
In article <seg6ci$rdq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de
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

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 5:54:20 AMAug 5
to
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)

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 8:12:25 AMAug 5
to
In article <memo.20210805...@jgd.cix.co.uk>, j...@cix.co.uk
(John Dallman) writes:

> In article <seg6ci$rdq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de
> (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)) wrote:
> > In article <sef7om$i74$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> > <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> > > 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?

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 8:14:22 AMAug 5
to
In article <segcga$g9$1...@dont-email.me>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik....@telia.com>
writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 8:38:23 AMAug 5
to
"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.

Arne Vajhøj

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 8:40:53 AMAug 5