From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:05:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct14.180542.25534
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Oct13.174351.5797@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.154010.23632@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In the first place, much of the comm software that's out there in the
>PC marketplace is third party comm software -- therefore, it has to
>be _separately packaged_ and _separately marketed_ and _separately
>supported_.  There are relatively few comm packages bundled with
>other things (like operating systems).  As I said in other parts of
>the article, much of the per-unit cost of a software product is _NOT_
>the initial development -- it's ongoing costs like marketing, packaging,
>distribution, and support.

Yes, now tell me something I don't know.  Hell, if you just count the
SOFTWARE, maintenance tends to be some 70% of the cost (and rising)
through the lifecycle.

>In the second place, please read what I underlined above -- I'm not
>saying that comm software is trivial (I have written various commercial
>comm packages so I know it's not trivial), I'm saying that it's not
>that expensive to develop _relative to the rest of an operating system_.

I read it the first time -- I deleted it this time.  What you are
saying is that the cost of developing the TCP/IP must be quite trivial
-- a few cents when compared to the cost of developing the rest of the
system (per copy).  Think about the number's we're talking about here.
What percentage of cost and effort would you say that developing the
Comm stuff is when compared to the whole OS?  Now look at that couple
cents you say is recovery for (and maintenance on) the networking
stuff and its documentation.  Do the numbers you get pass a sanity
check with the amount of money you expect MS to try to recover on
their sunk costs per copy sold?

>That's a very different thing.  Do you really think a comm package costs
>more to develop than a full-blown OS??

I'm sure I didn't say this, so I'm not sure why you act as if you
think I did.  Can you spell 'strawman'?  Yeah, I thought so.

>Now I'm not so sure that TCP/IP is so wonderful to include in NT, as
>I said I'm not sure that it is really a very appropriate choice for
>a PC network.  I just don't share the opinion that it's necessarily
>some kind of horrible mistake, unless MS decides that they can set some
>kind of sky-high price for the OS because of it.  Some companies,
>especially those with very heterogeneous networks, may go for it;  but
>most companies that are running networks on their PC's aren't using TCP
>and probably don't want to.

Microsoft has claimed (among other things) to be in competition with
UNIX.  That almost says that they have to include what one would
expect in a reasonable UNIX package.  I would think that this is
probably a big part of the motivation behind including TCP/IP, and I
think it makes a lot better sense than what QOS did with DesQView/X.
They quite frankly included the wrong network as the 'default' for a
product that does X windows.  MS may be making a mistake in the
opposite direction, but perhaps not.  There are an awful lot of people
who use Windows to run terminal software to talk on a LAN to bigger
machines (at least around here).  Windows/NT might be a good desktop
solution for these folks, if they have enough horsepower to run it,
despite the fact (no matter what the MS folks and Brian say -- they
should check on what the folks sent out of Redmond are saying) that it
is intended primarily for SERVERS.

>>>Why did I have to pay for Rexx when I bought OS/2?  I don't want to
>>>pay for features I'm not interested in either ... can I buy a copy of
>>>OS/2 without Rexx at a discount???
>> 
>> An OS without a CLI is probably a non-starter, insofar as arguments
>> about 'bundling' go.

>You consider Rexx the OS/2 CLI?  I don't think so!  You can certainly
>install and run OS/2 without it, and the normal command-line mode will
>work just fine.  It's certainly more flexible than the batch language,
>for what that's worth.  _You_ may use it as _your_ CLI, but it's hardly
>the only option, or even the only option shipped with the system.  I'd
>consider Rexx as more of a simple programming language, in more-or-less
>the same category as Basic (in terms of product category, not necessarily
>in terms of features or data model).

Ok, so what about getting MS-DOS without getting QBasic?  Of course,
then the editor won't work, but so what?

>>>Please let's not talk about non-issues.
>> 
>> Why is it a 'non-issue', other than the fact that NT is still in the
>> 'non-product' category?

>Why is your comment not a `non sequitur'?

One could as well ask why your comment above is so non-responsive to
the question.

>The discussion was about the practice of `bundling' a number of different
>features in a single package -- an OS in this case.  I interpreted the
>discussion as pertaining to the generic practice of bundling, with the
>case of NT as a specific instantiation.  I personally have no problem
>with that practice whether it's OS/2, NT, or whatever the OS-du-jour
>is, and I think the argument against it was fundamentally flawed.  I
>don't see why the actual `product' status of NT has anything to do with
>the discussion of that point (although obviously it bears rather
>pointedly on whether you can actually _use_ NT as a finished product).

Because that was the only reason I could find for your statement that
bundling was a 'non-issue'.  Obviously, whether bundling makes sense
depends on a number of things.  If that was your point, my only
response is, "So?".  If that wasn't your point, you don't appear to
have had one, other than perhaps to discourage discussion of the issue
after your posting.

>BTW I don't consider myself a religious partisan of either side --
>think of me more as a bookie trying to figure out how to set the odds
>on a horse race :-).

I don't either, and I've said as much.  Think of me more as someone
who reacts badly to attempts at FUD and obfuscation of issues.  Both
sides are prone to this, but lately the preponderance seems to come
from Brian and the MS boys.  So I poke holes in their posts.

Hey, it's a dirty job . . . 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy