Re: Bootcamp

On 7/2/2025 7:51 AM, gcalliet wrote:

Le 01/07/2025 à 19:27, Simon Clubley a écrit :

On 2025-07-01, gcalliet <gerard.calliet@pia-sofer.fr> wrote:

Le 07/06/2025 à 09:06, Subcommandante XDelta a écrit :

Enquiring minds want to know - just what went down at Malmo?

Business as usual.
>
The supplier is the center of the ecosystem and knows what is good for you.
>
The problem is: did VMS ecosystem survived thanks to "business as
usual"? I remember discutions here in 2013 where everybody known VMS
will dye, because of the standard rules of business.
>
Summary: VSI is redoing the same mistake as Digital: because we have got
a superior and genial offer we have not to hear about the way the
ecosystem and its context have evolved. The bad side of the excellence.
>

>
Can you offer specific examples ? It's hard to have a discussion unless
there are specific concerns listed.

Camiel explain very clearly the strategy choosed, and explain the way users should go. How can we do if this strategy is not good for us?
 Darya says "our actual goal is making our customers go to x86". Is it sure all the VMS users can go as fast as possible to x86?

Last VAX model was introduced in 1996, last Alpha model in 2003 and
last Itanium in 2017.
There are emulators available for VAX and Alpha but not for Itanium.
Latest VMS for VAX is 7.3, latest for Alpha and Itanium are 8.4.
Eventually customers will have to either migrate to x86-64 or migrate
off VMS.
Very little VSI can do about that.
It is my impression that VSI offer great support for Itanium and 8.4
(8.4-2L3) for customers that for whatever reason prefer to stay on that platform for some years.

I know people who need bare metal solutions, there were someone at the bootcamp who ask this question. No answer. It is not the strategy.
 Presentation of the best (for VSI) new solution: going to the cloud (VSI Cloud offer based on Oracle cloud) and final possibility being some Saas. Not any discussion about this strategy except "the times are changing, we go with them".

This keeps coming up.
Virtual is definitely the way forward. It is for other OS. It is
for VMS. But the fact that the vast majority will be going virtual
does not preclude that there is a number of customers that
for whatever reason need or strongly prefer physical.
And I think it would make sense for VSI to offer at least one
or two certified physical server(s).
We know that it works. Hobbyists has successfully run VMS on
physical x86-64 servers.
But how to make it happen?
I assume:
* people actually buying VMS licenses tell their friendly VSI
   sales person that they are interested in a physical server,
   because VSI need to know that they will sell more VMS
   licenses by doing it - else it will not happen
* same people tell what server(s) are relevant to change
   the goal from the abstract "support physical servers" to
   "certify HPE DLxxx Gy for VMS", because the latter can
   get estimated and if VSI leadership has an estimate of
   NNN hours in the hand then it may not look as bad

Every point has somehow strong justifications. But I think we are missing a more collaborating brainstorming about the needs, pace of evolutions, goals...
 In the old times, when we had a strong world wide compagny, and when everything was at its beginning, ok. Now there is a complex ecosystem trying to rebound. Perhaps another way of building strategies could help.

In the old times DEC was the second largest IT company in the world. I
doubt VSI will make top 2000 today. Different world.
Regarding ecosystem, then I believe changing and improving
VSI approach to open source is very important.
Arne