Newsgroups: comp.text
Path: utzoo!telly!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: Price of DWB 3.1
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.025732.7298@eci386.uucp>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
References: <1990Nov5.022533.29625@nixtdc.uucp> <1990Nov15.134714.15935@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1990Nov15.205157.20930@cbnewsl.att.com> <1706@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 02:57:32 GMT

In article <1706@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
> This, combined with earlier statements to the effect that we should throw
> all our non-postscript printers into the crapper, leads me to believe
> that either the DWB 3.1 distribution was concocted in an ivory tower, or
> AT&T is damned proud of this release.

I suspect the latter is the truth.  Regardless, the same device
independent output is still there, and unless you missed it, so is a
new post-processor for HP PCL.

> >[....] But why would you want source?
> 
> I don't.  But I want the people who provide my binaries to get it.  And
> I've heard rumors to the effect that they aren't interested.

I suspect it is because they either think they have already done the
same work to get similar features (as I think is the case at
SoftQuad), or they don't want to start from scratch with something
that in the previous release needed significant work to just get
up and running.

Personally I think the "starting over" step is very important in the
evolution of a product.  Look at the history of UNIX and what was done
each time a new Edition was released.

I too hope that either current DWB-2.0 vendors, or new ones, promptly
switch to 3.1, since I can't afford the source!
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA