Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!stiatl!srchtec!srchtec.uucp!mra From: mra@srchtec.uucp (Michael Almond) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: System V.4 Message-ID: <273@srchtec.UUCP> Date: 22 Oct 90 18:22:28 GMT Sender: mra@srchtec.UUCP Organization: search technology, inc. Lines: 83 Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Who sells 4.0? Does Intel?? Summary: Expires: References: <34996@cup.portal.com> <267@srchtec.UUCP> <1990Oct19.222636.9227@ico.isc.com> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: search technology, inc. Keywords: In article <1990Oct19.222636.9227@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >mra@srchtec.UUCP (Michael Almond) writes about a chat with UHC. (BTW, has >anyone suggested to the UHC folks that they might join in here on USENET?) I got a call from UHC about a posting I made a few weeks back. >> Just like all the other suppliers they don't offer online documentation... > >All which other suppliers? ISC and SCO both offer online documentation >(after, among other things, being beaten up about it by netfolk:-)... Hmm, I didn't know they were offering online manuals. I'd heard people mention on here that none of the vendors offer the online manuals. I'm glad at least a few have come to their senses. ESIX seems to be strongly against it. >> Also, they said the main part of the high price involves the fees from AT&T. > >Could some other folks who've been reading this group for a while help me >out here. I'm *sure* I remember that one of the great things about V.4 was >supposed to be that the royalties were going to be so much lower than V.3 >that the end-user price would be dirt-cheap. Did I just hallucinate that? I haven't heard anything about V.4 being less expensive. Maybe so. >> Apparently AT&T is moving away from 3.2... > >This just doesn't follow, somehow. It sounds like "We want to move from >X to Y, so we'll encourage it by raising the price on Y." Note - I *don't* >mean this as a criticism of what Michael wrote. I assume he's just >reporting; I'm just trying to make sense of it. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I was justing repeating what they told me. >> Does anyone know why they charge from X Window's. It is free software >> to anyone who wants it from MIT. I could understand maybe $100 for media >> and manuals, but $795? > >Several possibilities; lots of conjecture here: > - What you get from MIT needs a lot of work to turn it into product > quality with good performance. (I certainly spent enough time in > the assembly-language mud for the one X server I worked on!) I compiled the X stuff directly from MIT on DECstation 2100's without any problem (DECwindows su*ks). I've also heard people have the X11R4 running on PCs under Esix using the MIT stuff. > - Their X package included X11/NeWS, OpenLook, XView toolkit. > Don't these all require some Sun licensing fees? I don't think > they're too expensive (since Sun is trying to encourage use of > OpenLook and XView) but I thought there was some cost. No, that is what is great about XView. XView is free software and Sun is porting it to PCs and will distribute it freely. > - Is this a developer's X package? Since the rest of the system > is developer-oriented, it seems likely. This might include some > of UHC's development tools. It would also mean they're expecting > small quantities at this point, which requires larger margins > than the eventual end-user product. Never heard of a Developer's X package. If you get X running on a machine, there isn't anything additional needed to develope software. All you need is the library files to link with and the X clients (xterm, xclock, ...) use these. - Michael --- Michael R. Almond mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra Atlanta, Georgia (404) 441-1457 (office) .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. Georgia Tech Alumnus .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.