Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: BridgeWorks
Date: 21 Jul 2024 15:28:44 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <v7j9fc$rmh$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <v7e9qt$33dn4$1@dont-email.me> <v7h8d1$3msj2$1@dont-email.me> <v7hveg$3u9vu$3@dont-email.me> <v7j76f$4mtj$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="7449"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 1749

Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 7/20/2024 11:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:58:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. I wonder if it is a retro thing or there are still VB6
>>> applications out there that need to be maintained.
>>
>> Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
>> unsupported software?
>
>Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to today's supported 
>software?  ???CloudStrike???

You mean like VMS or OS/360... err.. I mean MVS... err.. I mean z/OS?

>Don't understand why anyone would question something that has been running 
>successfully for years with no problems ...

When you're on an isolated system you can do that, but when you're having 
to function in a public environment where you don't have control over the 
end terminals, this is no longer enough.  Which is why you want reliable
software that has been running for many years successfully but is also
supported.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."