Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: The real OpenWindows source announcement
Message-ID: <9011250511.AA22113@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 25 Nov 90 05:11:06 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 55

[ BSD vs Sun, and "free" source code ]

>>>> ... cost of media only -- $995 ...
>>> What media are you using -- gold-plated clay tablets?
>> The same stuff BSD ships their distribution on?

>> Last time I looked, CSRG wanted $700 for a BSD tape set.

> The CSRG distribution fee covers far more than tape distribution
> costs.  One of the big ticket items it covers is Keith Bostic's
> salary.  If you call CSRG for help with 4BSD, it's Keith who answers
> your questions.  CSRG considers this distribution support as part of
> the distribution cost.

Hm.  So we got our BSD tape from a neighbor, but on the other hand we
have never tried to call upon CSRG for help, so I needn't feel guilty.
Right?  Why can't the same be true of OW?  (Or if Sun is worried about
Evil Rip-off Users who get free tapes and then ask for support, admit
that support is really what you're selling.)

To take another tack, compare the levels of support.  I don't know
whether you've ever tried to get real help out of a vendor.  I once was
involved in a project that supposedly had purchased the right to help
from Sun.  We would up UTSLing anyway.  I have never had occasion to
ask Keith Bostic for help with anything, but from what I have heard of
him I would expect real help.  --But wait a minute, that's backwards,
Sun is the one charging a lot of money!

> You might be inclined to compare the cost of CSRG's operating system
> against Sun's software system, claiming that they're not the same
> size, complexity, etc.

Which strikes me as a reasonable argument.  (You don't say which one
you think is larger, more complex, etc, though I can probably guess.)

> On the other hand you should remember that CSRG operates with a very
> small staff with almost no waste.  Sun is a major corporation
> sporting much higher salaries both in management and at the peon
> level (which is the only level which CSRG has! :-))

You seem to be saying that it's OK for Sun to charge lots of money
because they waste most of it.  Are you sure you mean to say that, and
if not, what *do* you mean to say?

Or, to put it another way, why should we accept a high level of waste
from Sun when CSRG's example demonstrates that it's clearly not
necessary, even for a more complex system?

In any case, none of this really bears on the root of the problem - Sun
calling their source free when it clearly isn't.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu