Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: License Management Facility (LMF)
Message-ID: <00934FDA.44D76CA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 10 Apr 90 15:00:45 GMT
References: <10142@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 27

In article <10142@shlump.nac.dec.com>, kaiser@cheese.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>The crucial enabling technologies are LMF and CDROMs.  CDROMs make it possible
>to ship enormous quantities of stuff cheaply, safely, and securely; and LMF
>makes it safe for the beancounters and capitalism.

This sounds like a marketing ploy. Like you can't print multiple CD-ROMs
for each product? Besides, if I want to evaluate a product, I wanna see the
docs too, not just the executables. Of course, I could be strange by wanting
to read the manual once in a while. 

>Besides my Unix systems I manage a VMS cluster -- perhaps I'm being punished for
>sins in an earlier life.  And since I'm the guy who's always handled LMF on the
>cluster and the Unix systems, it's never been any problem at all.  There was a
>complaint from someone that it was difficult; I've never found that to be true.
>(He said that the previous system manager had screwed things up before he had to
>take over.  This seems to me a broader system management/personnel issue not
>limited to LMF, so why make LMF take the rap?  My preceding system manager left
>things pretty disorganized too!)

Any other UNIX operating system (Sun OS, Berkie, AT&T, AIX) doesn't do this
LMF stuff. Do they? Nope. Only Digital. 

It shows a lack of fundmental trust at some level. 

OH well. In a couple of decades from now, Digital will dump LMF, or we'll
all be running Berkie or something, just on the principle of the thing.