Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!dali!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bbn!bbn.com!fkittred
From: fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: License Management Facility (LMF)
Message-ID: <54736@bbn.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 90 16:03:34 GMT
References: <54695@bbn.COM> <1040@fiver.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: fkittred@spca.bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 30

In article <1040@fiver.UUCP> palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes:
>From article <54695@bbn.COM>, by fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge):
>> In article <00934FDA.44D76CA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>   Hmm, now this sounds interesting.  How does DEC networking products
>get along with other networks such as SUN's, HP's and maybe UNIX 3.2
>on 386 PC's? What is this "non-networking" or "non-standard"? 
>Dosn't DEC have a standard TCP/IP implementation with the ULTRIX product?
>Are there any problems useing DEC's networks when working with X-windows
>to another OS say's SUN's?  
>

No, no, no!  My complaint is with LMF, not DEC's networks.  Presently, LMF
is only of use on DEC systems.  In a distributed, heterogeneous environment,
this greatly reduces the usefulness of LMF.  If DEC decides to develop a
product for this environment, either they will have to produce an LMF for
each of their competitors systems, or they will have to adhere to some
standard for network licensing.  One choice makes life easy for customers
and ISVs; one makes it more difficult.

regards,
fletcher
>
>-- 
>Bob Palowoda   palowoda@fiver              |   *Home of Fiver BBS*
>Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda              | 415-623-8809 1200/2400
>     {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda     |     An XBBS System                
>Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+


Fletcher E. Kittredge  fkittred@bbn.com