Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site sftig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!sfjec!sfmag!sftig!jpl
From: jpl@sftig.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Re: marketing unix
Message-ID: <442@sftig.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 14:29:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftig.442
Posted: Fri Jul 20 14:29:55 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 04:07:31 EDT
References: <1475@pegasus.UUCP>, <2098@rlgvax.UUCP> <441@sftig.UUCP>, <697@dual.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Lines: 29

Although this may be just adding more tempest to the teapot, i feel
obliged to respond to Eric'c article.  I hope to avoid covering old ground.

Why doesn't Brand X have option Y?
This seems to have something to do with economics
(I'll have to tread lightly here, as i'm no expert).
The advantages and disadvantages of providing and supporting
option Y are weighed in economic terms and a decision is then
made (or should be).  Additional factors come into play as well
(should option Y' from brand Z be borrowed directly, should
it be "improved", how long will it take, etc).

These are all business decisions.
The folks of CSRG at UCB don't do business,
they do technical research.
AT&T is in business for profit;
hence, business decisions are therefore
likely to be more marketing oriented,
and probably somewhat less technically oriented.
The distiction between business and technical decisions
is not always as clear as i have implied
(perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes?)

Apologies to Guy; apparently it was someone else who was lost in space.
jeff lankford	sftig!jpl
PS.  As for inefficient code, well it appears about anywhere
	one may care to look, doesn't it?
PPS.   Perhaps we should move on to a less "religious" issue?
	Have we flogged this subject sufficiently?