Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
On 3/26/24 9:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist systems
are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
On 26/03/2024 14:26, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
Actually I am not surprised. There have been a lot of VMS newbies
recently on the VSI forum, asking endless basic questions without even
trying to look in the manuals, and a fair number of responses from both
VSI and the community
However it is a real shame, as such people could well move into VMS
jobs, and spread the word
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist
systems are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
On 26/03/2024 14:26, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
Actually I am not surprised. There have been a lot of VMS newbies
recently on the VSI forum, asking endless basic questions without even
trying to look in the manuals, and a fair number of responses from both
VSI and the community
However it is a real shame, as such people could well move into VMS
jobs, and spread the word
On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 10:29 -0500, Richard Jordan wrote:
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist
systems are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
They said they would be issuing final licences in 2025. But they don't mention if they are open ended or not. They need to confirm that.
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image * new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador license is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to
the new community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out
because they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the
new community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
In article <utv9j6$2asrl$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/ >>
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image
* new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not
increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador
license is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to
the new community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out
because they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the
new community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
I wonder why community licenses were never automated. Why was there ever
a queue? Why did it need someone to do things to process it?
Surely they could have just had a form that added a row to a database
and then sent an email. Would have been a lot easier than all of this.
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and licensed >> VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image
* new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador license
is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to the new community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out because they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the new community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
Arne
On 3/26/2024 4:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed
VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk
image
* new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not
increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador
license
is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to
the new
community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out
because
they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the
new
community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
Arne
Yeah, not what I feel is in any way positive.
What? Everyone thought VSI was going to be another DEC?
David has some things to be thankful for ...
Perpetual VAX license running on a VAXstation 4000 model 90A
Perpetual Alpha license running VMS V8.3 on an AlphaServer 800
Perpetual itanic license running on the boat anchor (not powered up for
at least a year)
No longer doing software work ...
:-)
In article <utv9j6$2asrl$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/ >>
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image >> * new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not
increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador
license is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to
the new community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out
because they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the
new community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
I wonder why community licenses were never automated. Why was there ever
a queue? Why did it need someone to do things to process it?
Surely they could have just had a form that added a row to a database
and then sent an email. Would have been a lot easier than all of this.
I might try to bring back to life my old firms development Vax and Alpha. Some
perpetual licenses there, albeit slow.
On 3/26/24 9:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist systems
are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
On 3/26/2024 4:13 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <utv9j6$2asrl$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 3/26/2024 10:26 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image
* new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
And I suspect that the change will reduce community contributions not
increase them.
In reality the changes could also be described differently:
* student license is being renamed to community license and
platform upgraded from Alpha to x86-64
* community license is being renamed to VMS ambassador license
and with a specific requirement for contributions
But the student license was never popular as far as I can tell
and the VMS ambassador requirements will scare people.
So my best guess is that if we look at 1000 communityt license users,
then we will see:
25 that has been contributing and will switch to VMS ambassador license
25 that has been contributing but will drop out because VMS ambassador
license is not for them
400 that has been running VMS on Alpha and will drop out
100 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will switch to
the new community license
200 that are oldtimers interested in VMS on x86-64 and will drop out
because they don't like images
250 that are newcomers interested in VMS x86-64 and will switch to the
new community license
or:
25 VMS ambassador licenses
350 new community license
625 drop outs
with:
50% reduction in contributors
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics >>
But I could be wrong, but that is what I predict.
And that is pretty bad!!!!
I wonder why community licenses were never automated. Why was there ever
a queue? Why did it need someone to do things to process it?
Surely they could have just had a form that added a row to a database
and then sent an email. Would have been a lot easier than all of this.
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
been plenty of interest? And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Or, if there is such interest, perhaps some beancounter (everyone knows I dislike beancounters, right?) sees it as a way to milk some money from the interest?
The community license seemed like someone understood. What happened to that understanding?
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
On 27/3/24 01:26, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is valid through August 22, 2024"
https://sp.vmssoftware.com/#/packages/676
says "x86 community licenses good through April 1, 2024", agreeing with
what licence list says. That's five days away for those of us on this
side of the dateline.
I'm trying to avoid making April Fool's references.
On 3/27/24 00:26, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
It's dead. They just killed VMS - there's no way you can do anything
useful with VMS anymore, there's no pipeline for new users. New owners
are just going to do the broadcom extract-maxiumum-gravy thing. I
wondered why my community license was taking seven months to provision.
"Long waiting list" my buttocks.
If you're using VMS in production, it's beyond time to find an alternative.
If you can't abide newbies, you don't deserve a motivated base.Dropping
a once-a-year toy version is 1990 nonsense.
... it was fun to imagine a potential uptick
in interest in VMS due to being able to run (somewhat) easily on
hardware everyone has.
And for that matter, what exactly is the purpose of the Ambassador
program? Why should I want to "bring value to VMS Software" when VMS
software has no interest in bringing value to the community? It sounds
an awful lot like an unpaid job to me, especially with the requirement
to participate in meetings and "report on your work in the ecosystem".
no change in number of newcomers needing a lot of handhelding with basics
On 3/26/24 5:39 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
On 27/3/24 01:26, Chris Townley wrote:
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is
valid through August 22, 2024"
Which e-mail would that be? The announcement about discontinuing Alpha
and Integrity community licenses doesn't appear to have anything like
that statement. It did say the existing licenses would be renewed one
more time "in August" -- presumably August 2024.
, however
https://sp.vmssoftware.com/#/packages/676
says "x86 community licenses good through April 1, 2024", agreeing
with what licence list says. That's five days away for those of us on
this side of the dateline.
So far the x86 license seems to go mostly by field test practices and
they have a PAK on the portal. I've been assuming that would change sometime soon to how community has been working, but with the plug being pulled on that, it's an open question how and when there will be another
PAK for OpenVMS x86. We've been told that at some point there will be
this vmdk thing, but whether that's effective *now* with no other
options, or whether there will be one more PAK on the portal, or what,
is not something I've seen mentioned.
I'm trying to avoid making April Fool's references.
Go ahead and send around an announcement that your patch syndication
service is back online :-). While we're lamenting things that were good while they lasted :-(.
On 3/26/2024 4:48 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
I might try to bring back to life my old firms development Vax and
Alpha. Some
perpetual licenses there, albeit slow.
I have to ask, slow for what? I assume you're not doing commercial
work. Yeah, not the latest stuff, but, plenty for hobbyist stuff.
One further thought: I wonder what this means for systems like Eisner,
which are running on VSI time-limited licences ?
One further thought: I wonder what this means for systems like Eisner,
which are running on VSI time-limited licences ?
On 3/26/2024 2:43 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
One further thought: I wonder what this means for systems like Eisner,
which are running on VSI time-limited licences ?
As long as I'm at VSI (and I don't plan on leaving any time soon), I'll
make sure that EISNER is taken care of.
On 3/26/2024 2:43 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
One further thought: I wonder what this means for systems like
Eisner, which are running on VSI time-limited licences ?
As long as I'm at VSI (and I don't plan on leaving any time soon),
I'll make sure that EISNER is taken care of.
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist
systems
are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but
not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
I could perhaps handle loosing Alpha if we weren't also loosing x86.
A fresh vmdk once a year is not an acceptable solution. I'm not
setting up a fresh VM every year, its not worth the effort.
They said they would be issuing final licences in 2025. But they
don't mention if they are open ended or not. They need to confirm
that.
I think it is very very safe to assume they are not open-ended.
They're giving Alpha and Itanium hobbyists a year to move off of
OpenVMS.
On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 08:22 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:
They said they would be issuing final licences in 2025. But they
don't mention if they are open ended or not. They need to confirm
that.
I think it is very very safe to assume they are not open-ended.
They're giving Alpha and Itanium hobbyists a year to move off of
OpenVMS.
I think some people would want to hang onto their VAX/Alpha
installations. Don't really care about TItanic though.
On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 07:12 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:
Losing the Alpha option is my real pain point. Both my hobbyist
systems
are Alphas (DS10 and PWS-600au).
The fact that they are summarily rejecting already submitted (but
not
yet approved) requests quite frankly hurts.
I could perhaps handle loosing Alpha if we weren't also loosing x86.
A fresh vmdk once a year is not an acceptable solution. I'm not
setting up a fresh VM every year, its not worth the effort.
THey didn't say anything about closing the VSI service panel?
So yeah, loosing access to the VSI service portal and as far as I can
see they will not be issuing standalone licenses - just refreshing the
VM once a year. Basically that student kit they had before, but now on
x86.
THey didn't say anything about closing the VSI service panel?
The email I got says:
"How This Affects You
Your current license is valid through August 22, 2024. In the next
several days, we will send you your credentials for accessing our
Service Portal where you will get your replacement license (in
August) and software. On the day when your license expires, your
access to the Service Portal will be revoked."
So yeah, loosing access to the VSI service portal and as far as I can
see they will not be issuing standalone licenses - just refreshing
the VM once a year. Basically that student kit they had before, but
now on x86.
I wonder if we will get a renewal of the X86 PAK, which expires on Monday
On 27/3/24 10:01, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 3/26/24 5:39 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is
valid through August 22, 2024"
Which e-mail would that be? The announcement about discontinuing Alpha
and Integrity community licenses doesn't appear to have anything like
that statement. It did say the existing licenses would be renewed one
more time "in August" -- presumably August 2024.
I have to assume that when I get a personal email entitled "Updates to
your Community License" that references "Your current license", it's referring to the only Community License I currently have, the one for
x86_64.
As long as I'm at VSI (and I don't plan on leaving any time soon),
I'll make sure that EISNER is taken care of.
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
been plenty of interest?
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Or, if there is such interest, perhaps some beancounter (everyone knows I >dislike beancounters, right?) sees it as a way to milk some money from the interest?
The community license seemed like someone understood. What happened to that >understanding?
On 3/27/24 04:44, David Goodwin wrote:
And for that matter, what exactly is the purpose of the Ambassador
program? Why should I want to "bring value to VMS Software" when VMS
software has no interest in bringing value to the community? It sounds
an awful lot like an unpaid job to me, especially with the requirement
to participate in meetings and "report on your work in the ecosystem".
What ecosystem? A newsgroup? A few barely-maintained websites? The VSI forums, where Mister Moderator clomps in at the slightest hint that
people may not be devoting their free time Generating Commerical Value
for VSI?
Ooooh, I'm cross. Vexxed, even.
In article <utulvc$1pmvc$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk says...
Just received 2 mails from VSI
End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Or there is an Ambassador program
Not sure what to think yet...
I think the community license/hobbyist program has officially ended -
the x86 vmdks are something entirely different and a continuation of
that student thing they were doing before.
Going to be interesting to see what sort of damage this does to OpenVMS.
I suspect their "community engagement" is going to pretty much disappear entirely as a result of this which may put the long-term future of
OpenVMS at risk.
Could do some significant damage to any open-source packages that aren't being directly maintained by VSI themselves too. And not just on Alpha
and Itanium - I don't think I'd bother porting/maintaining stuff if its
not going to be used outside of perhaps a few commercial users even if I could use the Ambassador program to do it at no cost.
And for that matter, what exactly is the purpose of the Ambassador
program? Why should I want to "bring value to VMS Software" when VMS
software has no interest in bringing value to the community? It sounds
an awful lot like an unpaid job to me, especially with the requirement
to participate in meetings and "report on your work in the ecosystem".
I wonder why community licenses were never automated. Why was there ever
a queue? Why did it need someone to do things to process it?
Surely they could have just had a form that added a row to a database
and then sent an email. Would have been a lot easier than all of this.
(warning: this is going to be a long rant)
First announcement link:
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2024-03-25-community-license-update/
The changes seems to be:
* student license program is dropped
* community license program is changed
- not available for Alpha and Itanium, only available for x86-64
- not available as license+kit, only available as preinstalled disk image * new VMS ambassador license
- with obligations to contribute
- license for all 3 platforms
- license+kit model
Reasons given are to solve problems:
* too much work managing licenses
* too little contribution back
I don't think the changes will solve the problems.
It is obvious that VSI has been struggling with the community licenses,
but VSI will still have to do commercial licenses, ISV licenses and
the new VMS ambassador licenses. If that process is not automated, then
it will stille be hassle.
On 3/26/24 6:53 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
On 27/3/24 10:01, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 3/26/24 5:39 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is
valid through August 22, 2024"
Which e-mail would that be? The announcement about discontinuing Alpha
and Integrity community licenses doesn't appear to have anything like
that statement. It did say the existing licenses would be renewed one
more time "in August" -- presumably August 2024.
I have to assume that when I get a personal email entitled "Updates to
your Community License" that references "Your current license", it's
referring to the only Community License I currently have, the one for
x86_64.
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to
me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
On 3/26/2024 2:43 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
One further thought: I wonder what this means for systems like Eisner,
which are running on VSI time-limited licences ?
As long as I'm at VSI (and I don't plan on leaving any time soon), I'll make sure that EISNER is taken care of.
The changes does not make business sense for VSI.
No longer doing software work ...
Looks like a more restricted X86 - We can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
In article <utulvc$1pmvc$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
Townley) wrote:
Looks like a more restricted X86 - We can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Looking up what you can do with a VMDK, the options for running it seem
to be QEMU, VirtualBox or VMware. The problems there are:
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting
everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises have
them looking hard at alternatives.
John
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/26/24 6:53 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
On 27/3/24 10:01, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 3/26/24 5:39 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is
valid through August 22, 2024"
Which e-mail would that be? The announcement about discontinuing Alpha >>>> and Integrity community licenses doesn't appear to have anything like
that statement. It did say the existing licenses would be renewed one
more time "in August" -- presumably August 2024.
I have to assume that when I get a personal email entitled "Updates to
your Community License" that references "Your current license", it's
referring to the only Community License I currently have, the one for
x86_64.
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to
me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For
OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing
today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining their own Perl port ?
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to
me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For
OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing >>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining
their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
I guess I'll see what results from my application for the new community license. I could probably qualify as an ambassador based on work I've
done in the past, but it's a little vague what the expectations are and
I don't have a lot of confidence they can actually process applications
for anything based on recent experience.
I hope one of the VSI employees reading comp.os.vms are already having
a quiet word with the people responsible for this to get this situation
fixed quickly.
If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.
I would also recommend VSI review all the other open source software they make available which is maintained by non-VSI people and arrange for those people to have immediate continued access with the minimum of fuss and
change required.
On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to >>> me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For >>> OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing >>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining >> their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
base installation.
I guess I'll see what results from my application for the new community license. I could probably qualify as an ambassador based on work I've
done in the past, but it's a little vague what the expectations are and
I don't have a lot of confidence they can actually process applications
for anything based on recent experience.
Given the above, you should not have to apply to continue getting free
access to VMS systems, and you certainly should not have to go through
this pre-built system only setup.
IMHO, the fact VSI have not already contacted you and arranged for your continued free access to VMS systems, and based on the current setup, is
a major mistake on the part of VSI.
Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
to apply for anything. :-(
I hope one of the VSI employees reading comp.os.vms are already having
a quiet word with the people responsible for this to get this situation
fixed quickly.
I would also recommend VSI review all the other open source software they make available which is maintained by non-VSI people and arrange for those people to have immediate continued access with the minimum of fuss and
change required.
If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.
On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:8< snip 8<
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their8< snip 8<
base installation.
I guess I'll see what results from my application for the new community
license. I could probably qualify as an ambassador based on work I've
done in the past, but it's a little vague what the expectations are and
I don't have a lot of confidence they can actually process applications
for anything based on recent experience.
Given the above, you should not have to apply to continue getting free
access to VMS systems, and you certainly should not have to go through
this pre-built system only setup.
If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.
Simon.
On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining >>> their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
base installation.
Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
to apply for anything. :-(
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
Or, if there is such interest, perhaps some beancounter (everyone knows I
dislike beancounters, right?) sees it as a way to milk some money from the interest?
The community license seemed like someone understood. What happened to that >> understanding?
It's been said before in this newsgroup, by me and others, that
the current approach is non-competitive. It may be the only
possible approach for business and legal reasons, but the idea
of generating expanded sales around a closed-source, obscure
commercial system was always exceedingly unlikely. Serving only
the legacy market is, by definition, finite.
And I say that as someone who actually really likes VMS and
would like to see it remain available! I dislike software
monocultures on a number of grounds, but the reality is that
we're heading towards one. It's a real shame.
Personally, I think the way to address this would have been to
simply do away with PAKs and time-limited licenses entirely.
The idea that commercial users would expose themselves legally
and operationally by using licenses that come out of pakgen or
whatever never struck me as particularly evidence-based; maybe
back in the day when small ma' and pa' operations were buying
a microvax and putting it in the back office to run bookkeeping,
but those days are long gone. Legacy customers in the fortune
$n$-whatever are going to maintain their licenses because the
risk cost of not doing so outweighs the cost of staying on the
up-and-up. So what's the point of all the overhead at the OS
level?
On 2024-03-26, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
No longer doing software work ...
In a way you are - you are still doing the maths/algorithms/procedures involved in building your aircraft... :-)
Simon.
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/26/24 6:53 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
On 27/3/24 10:01, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 3/26/24 5:39 PM, Jim Duff wrote:
*I'm* certainly confused. The email says "Your current license is >>>>>> valid through August 22, 2024"
Which e-mail would that be? The announcement about discontinuing Alpha >>>>> and Integrity community licenses doesn't appear to have anything like >>>>> that statement. It did say the existing licenses would be renewed one >>>>> more time "in August" -- presumably August 2024.
I have to assume that when I get a personal email entitled "Updates to >>>> your Community License" that references "Your current license", it's
referring to the only Community License I currently have, the one for
x86_64.
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to
me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For
OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing >>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining
their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
I guess I'll see what results from my application for the new community license. I could probably qualify as an ambassador based on work I've
done in the past, but it's a little vague what the expectations are and
I don't have a lot of confidence they can actually process applications
for anything based on recent experience.
Well well...
Took my first VMS/DCL introduction course some 30+ years ago.
Have been doing VMS work every single workday since then.
Up to 2000 as emploided and up to now running my own company.
My current/last assignment was cancelled by the customer on the
last on June 2023 (last summer). I'm now into retirement plans...
So what now? It is very mixed feelings. As much as I have loved
my VMS work over the years, it is an very "empty" feeling at the
moment. I have obviously put to much work and devotion in this
and it is today clear that I have been very close to loosing both
my wife and my familly over the years. That hurts *a lot* today.
The only positive part is that I have provided an economical
stability today for my wife and familly, but I have lost a lot
of my childrens grow-up time.
It is like all my efforts spent on work are just worthless today.
Now I'm 100% devoted to my wife who I try to make up for all the
lost time the last 40 years (incl my 10 PDP-11 years).
I will probably simply leave everything VMS related behind and
will not be either here on c.o.v or on the VSI forum.
I might get a call from my last customer to do some consulting
when they start up the project to move of the VMS platform into
something else. I can just as well milk some last money from them,
as long as it doesn't interfere with my devotion to my wife.
It has been some fun also, with VMS and c.o.v. Thanks all!
Jan-Erik Söderholm
Sweden.
If you're maintaining PERL for VMS, then why are you messing with a CL?
You should be in the developer program.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
On 3/27/24 7:45 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
If you're maintaining PERL for VMS, then why are you messing with a CL? You >> should be in the developer program.
I have never heard of a "developer" program. I have heard of ISV
licenses for people producing commercial software for sale. That never seemed relevant for open source work, but if you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.
On 3/27/2024 8:59 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 3/27/24 7:45 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
If you're maintaining PERL for VMS, then why are you messing with a
CL? You
should be in the developer program.
I have never heard of a "developer" program. I have heard of ISV
licenses for people producing commercial software for sale. That never
seemed relevant for open source work, but if you have evidence to the
contrary, please enlighten me.
Several years ago I mentioned to Mark Daniels that he should be in the developer/ISV program, and he checked it out and joined. He seemed to
be pleased. Last I heard, he wasn't considering WASD a commercial product.
On 3/27/2024 8:59 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:Yes, I am pleased. No, it is not.
On 3/27/24 7:45 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
If you're maintaining PERL for VMS, then why are you messing with a
CL? You
should be in the developer program.
I have never heard of a "developer" program. I have heard of ISV
licenses for people producing commercial software for sale. That never
seemed relevant for open source work, but if you have evidence to the
contrary, please enlighten me.
Several years ago I mentioned to Mark Daniels that he should be in the developer/ISV program, and he checked it out and joined. He seemed to
be pleased. Last I heard, he wasn't considering WASD a commercial product.
On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
VSI is a private company not a public company.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:12:39 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
VSI is a private company not a public company.
Maybe they’re readying it for an acquisition?
On 3/27/2024 10:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
VSI is a private company not a public company.
Maybe they’re readying it for an acquisition?
Uh, no.
Our parent company (Teracloud -- https://teracloud.com/)
likes to acquire companies, not get rid of them.
On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
VSI is a private company not a public company.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:58:36 -0400, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
On 3/27/2024 10:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
VSI is a private company not a public company.
Maybe they’re readying it for an acquisition?
Uh, no.
Our parent company (Teracloud -- https://teracloud.com/)
likes to acquire companies, not get rid of them.
So I notice. It seems to have collected a real random mishmash of businesses, with no clear cohesion behind them.
<https://teracloud.com/projects>
Seems it was founded in 2017, according to <https://www.linkedin.com/company/teracloud-llc>. Since VSI existed
before that, that means it has already been acquired once.
On 28/03/2024 11:12 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
VSI is a private company not a public company.
Private company's still have shares.
In any case, they're possibly
juicing the value to sell off the IP.
Wow Jan-Erik, are we twins? Some of what you write is also my story.
Note, you can still hang around here in any spare time. Someone(s) need to keep
Simon honest.
:-)
On 3/27/24 2:58 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining >>>> their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
base installation.
They are using the standard distribution as well as some kit-building procedures I created. This is all open source and they are not doing anything wrong here.
What I have been doing for a long time that no one else has been doing
is fairly frequent builds of the current development branch followed by fixing upstream whatever got broken since the last time I built. That constant maintenance is why the standard distribution even works on VMS.
Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
to apply for anything. :-(
Thanks for the note of support. I don't really feel that anybody owes me anything, but "why are you making it harder for me to help you?" is a question that's been rattling around in my head.
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Somehow there was too much interest and not enough "engagement"? If
Arne had put all his nice example code on a VSI-hosted wiki instead of
his own web site would that have convinced them that the community is
doing enough for VSI?
Meanwhile I still don't have even an auto-reply from applying for a new community license.
On 3/28/2024 5:28 AM, Bork wrote:
On 28/03/2024 11:12 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
Boost the share price.
VSI is a private company not a public company.
Private company's still have shares.
Yes. But since they are not traded there is no price
on the stock exchange to boost.
In any case, they're possibly juicing the
value to sell off the IP.
I doubt that. I don't think VSI got any IP that they can
sell.
Arne
Here we are nearly 14 years after I was forced to kill the patch
syndication feeds, and I don't know how many years after the Sydney CSC stopped providing the patch list, and there is *still* no way to automatically retrieve a list of patches for your version of VMS.
In article <utulvc$1pmvc$1@dont-email.me>, news@cct-net.co.uk (Chris
Townley) wrote:
Looks like a more restricted X86 - We can download a pre-built and
licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
Looking up what you can do with a VMDK, the options for running it seem
to be QEMU, VirtualBox or VMware. The problems there are:
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting
everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises have
them looking hard at alternatives.
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises
have
them looking hard at alternatives.
FWIW, XenServer (formerly Citrix) sees an opportunity what with the
recent Broadcom VMware pricing changes: https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/xenserver_8_returns/
On 2024-03-27 14:38:00 +0000, John Dallman said:
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises
have them looking hard at alternatives.
FWIW, XenServer (formerly Citrix) sees an opportunity what with the
recent Broadcom VMware pricing changes: https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/xenserver_8_returns/
On 3/28/2024 7:23 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 3/28/2024 5:28 AM, Bork wrote:
In any case, they're possibly juicing
the
value to sell off the IP.
I doubt that. I don't think VSI got any IP that they can
sell.
There is also the question of whether they can re-sale the license(s) or agreements they received from HP. Perhaps acquisition of a company is
not the same as transferring assets?
They do own whatever they develop and can sell that.
On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a >good thing for VMS.
Or, if there is such interest, perhaps some beancounter (everyone knows I >>> dislike beancounters, right?) sees it as a way to milk some money from the interest?
The community license seemed like someone understood. What happened to that
understanding?
It's been said before in this newsgroup, by me and others, that
the current approach is non-competitive. It may be the only
possible approach for business and legal reasons, but the idea
of generating expanded sales around a closed-source, obscure
commercial system was always exceedingly unlikely. Serving only
the legacy market is, by definition, finite.
While I seem to consider the world running on Unix/Linux/WEENDOZE could be a >more dangerous place. Some might agree since IBM seems to be still doing well.
Yeah, they will run Linux, but, I think that is more marketing than anything else.
And I say that as someone who actually really likes VMS and
would like to see it remain available! I dislike software
monocultures on a number of grounds, but the reality is that
we're heading towards one. It's a real shame.
Well, if we get Trump, will anything matter? Good bye constitution, hello King
Donald the First. Someone was just pointing out on TV this morning that when >facisim (I can't spell it) comes to America, it will be carrying a US flag and a
bible. Ok, off topic ...
Personally, I think the way to address this would have been to
simply do away with PAKs and time-limited licenses entirely.
Gee, someone mentioned this years ago. Oh, that was me ...
The idea that commercial users would expose themselves legally
and operationally by using licenses that come out of pakgen or
whatever never struck me as particularly evidence-based; maybe
back in the day when small ma' and pa' operations were buying
a microvax and putting it in the back office to run bookkeeping,
but those days are long gone. Legacy customers in the fortune
$n$-whatever are going to maintain their licenses because the
risk cost of not doing so outweighs the cost of staying on the
up-and-up. So what's the point of all the overhead at the OS
level?
Indeed!
On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to >>>> me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For >>>> OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing >>>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining >>> their own Perl port ?
They are not maintaining their own port.
So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
base installation.
[...]Given the above, you should not have to apply to continue getting free
access to VMS systems, and you certainly should not have to go through
this pre-built system only setup.
IMHO, the fact VSI have not already contacted you and arranged for your continued free access to VMS systems, and based on the current setup, is
a major mistake on the part of VSI.
Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
to apply for anything. :-(
I hope one of the VSI employees reading comp.os.vms are already having
a quiet word with the people responsible for this to get this situation
fixed quickly.
I would also recommend VSI review all the other open source software they make available which is maintained by non-VSI people and arrange for those people to have immediate continued access with the minimum of fuss and
change required.
If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.
VSI does not own VMS IP.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:09:01 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
VSI does not own VMS IP.
What about the code VSI created? Do the rights to that belong to HP as
well?
On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.
What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.
But 5% of the code for an OS is not worth much without
the remaining 95%.
On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate
that there has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in
VMS is a
good thing for VMS.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.
What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.
bill
On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
good thing for VMS.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.
What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.
On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there
has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
good thing for VMS.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.
What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.
bill
On 3/28/2024 8:31 PM, bill wrote:
On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
[snip]
Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate
that there
has
been plenty of interest?
One would think!
And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in
VMS is a
good thing for VMS.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.
What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.
bill
I tend to try to look beyond what is said ...
It may not be technical at all. What if someone in VSI, or it's parent, asked, why are we doing this? It isn't what is our business plan.
Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it. Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
I don't know anything. Just speculation. But in c.o.v I have not
noticed much being said by VSI people. Might not be healthy speaking
out against those at the top.
Nor am I buying the newbie issue. Just point them at c.o.v and they
would get more advice than they wanted.
It may not be technical at all. What if someone in VSI, or it's parent, asked, why are we doing this? It isn't what is our business plan.
Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it. Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
I don't know anything. Just speculation. But in c.o.v I have not
noticed much being said by VSI people. Might not be healthy speaking
out against those at the top.
On 29/03/2024 01:54, Dave Froble wrote:
Nor am I buying the newbie issue. Just point them at c.o.v and they
would get more advice than they wanted.
I believe the recent batch of VMS newbies helped the demise.
Too many couldn't be bothered to even look at he docs/release notes. One
chap couldn't be bothered to read the TCP/IP docs - and it showed in the pleading thread.
He then complained about the first 2.2-2 patch - the release notes
clearly stated to install the PCSI patch first - as did his transcript
from his attempt to install.
He then just grumbled on the forum - even after a few good clear
responses from VSI people.
No wonder they thought is it worth it?
On 3/28/2024 9:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
It may not be technical at all. What if someone in VSI, or it's parent,
asked, why are we doing this? It isn't what is our business plan.
Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it.
Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
I think the business case is there for CL.
The cost of emailing out CL licenses is a couple of orders
of magnitudes smaller than the cost of replacing the
CL "free testing" with employee testers and replacing
the CL "open source maintainers" with employee developers.
I don't know anything. Just speculation. But in c.o.v I have not noticed >> much being said by VSI people. Might not be healthy speaking out against
those at the top.
Public commenting on your employers decisions is
generally considered inappropriate.
Arne
In article <memo.20240327143819.1408P@jgd.cix.co.uk>, jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting
everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises
have them looking hard at alternatives.
They've concluded that VMware is not worth the money Broadcom want for it
and are switching to a KVM-based solution.
Broadcom seem to believe they have something uniquely capable, and the
market will happily absorb huge price rises. They are gradually being
shown this is not the case. Their special one-off offer to us was only a
5x price increase for one year, plus steep rises after that.
We're a 25k people company, but only a couple of hundred TechOps staff
create or maintain VMs themselves. Since the Broadcom price increase was
more than the total annual salaries and costs of those people, the
decision to switch was pretty easy.
Everyone else just uses VMs, and that's the same whatever vitalisation they're running on.
VSI should probably put another vitalisation supplier at the head of the supported list.
John
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting
everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises
have them looking hard at alternatives.
In article <memo.20240327143819.1408P@jgd.cix.co.uk>, jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
VSI should probably put another vitalisation supplier at the head of the supported list.
We recognize this issue. While it was not a focus of my talk at
the bootcamp regarding ESXi for VMS virtual machines, I discussed
some problems we've been having since Broadcom took over,
specifically with getting the downloads we're entitled to.
RHEL and Oracle Linux are the first two KVM hypervisors we're
focusing on. Proxmox is on the horizon.
On 09/11/2024 16:45, John Dallman wrote:
In article <memo.20240327143819.1408P@jgd.cix.co.uk>, jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) wrote:
* QEMU seems to be pretty complex, or at least, ill-documented.
* VirtualBox is from Oracle, and thus subject to corporate whims.
* VMware is from Broadcom, whose swingeing price rises are putting
everyone off the product.
My employers are large-scale users of VMware, but the price rises
have them looking hard at alternatives.
They've concluded that VMware is not worth the money Broadcom want for it and are switching to a KVM-based solution.
Broadcom seem to believe they have something uniquely capable, and the market will happily absorb huge price rises. They are gradually being
shown this is not the case. Their special one-off offer to us was only a
5x price increase for one year, plus steep rises after that.
We're a 25k people company, but only a couple of hundred TechOps staff create or maintain VMs themselves. Since the Broadcom price increase was more than the total annual salaries and costs of those people, the
decision to switch was pretty easy.
Everyone else just uses VMs, and that's the same whatever vitalisation they're running on.
VSI should probably put another vitalisation supplier at the head of the supported list.
John
As a bit of a virtualisation newbie (apart from briefly using Virtualbox
on windows, and finding it painful) I set up an Ubuntu box and installed KVM/QEMU.
I found it fairly easy to set up a virtual VMS instance, with only one
retry!
I now find it fairly easy - there are loads of hints/guides on the interweb
On 11/9/2024 11:45 AM, John Dallman wrote:
In article <memo.20240327143819.1408P@jgd.cix.co.uk>, jgd@cix.co.uk (John
Dallman) wrote:
VSI should probably put another vitalisation supplier at the head of the
supported list.
We recognize this issue. While it was not a focus of my talk at the bootcamp regarding ESXi for VMS virtual machines, I discussed some problems we've been having since Broadcom took over, specifically with getting the downloads we're entitled to.
RHEL and Oracle Linux are the first two KVM hypervisors we're focusing on.
Proxmox is on the horizon.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 442 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 29:29:28 |
| Calls: | 9,153 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,433 |
| Messages: | 6,043,427 |