Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!cert!netnews.upenn.edu!jes From: jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: OS costs Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 90 13:06:14 GMT References: <350@usaos.UUCP> <1990Aug28.182758.29036@ico.isc.com> <357@usaos.UUCP> <1990Aug30.031528.2432@ico.isc.com> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Lines: 29 In-reply-to: rcd@ico.isc.com's message of 30 Aug 90 03:15:28 GMT Dick Dunn: > ... Instead, the development is nearly continuous, which means > current sales have to support a full-time development staff as well > as the usual maintenance, support, marketing, sales... Now, figure > that developers cost you $1.5-2 M per dozen per year...and trust me, > you need several dozen developers these days. While I don't doubt for a minute that this is currently true, doesn't this strike anyone else as completely outrageous? I mean, think about how many developers are employed by 386-Unix vendors (and AT&T!), and compare it to the number of developers required to support DOS*. It must be at least 10:1, maybe even 100:1. Why does Unix require such huge development-support costs? If Unix is ever going to 'mature' as a product, it's got to shed the need for intensive system hacking, and the needless duplication of effort on the part of vendors (how many developers are working on competing sysadmin and installation schemes?). *) If you don't like the comparison to DOS, choose any other alternative, PC-based OS (esp. OS/2). I don't think the number will change that much.