From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Coherent?
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 10:28:40 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:

> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
> [about downloading Linux which costs $$$$]
> >> So did I to get my first copy of Linux. However, you might be able to get
> >> Linux on disk by mail. That might be cheaper.
> >Disks cost about $4 apiece.  With 15 disks, that's $60.
>
> HD white label disks cost $1 here and brand label cost $2. You're buying
> very expensive disks.

Pay attention.  That's to buy the SLS disks with linux *already copied onto
them*.  If we're going to have a discussion, use common sense.

>
> >> >gotten the rest of the SLS distribution from tsx-11.mit.edu via DEC's
> >> >ftpmail server.  That means I've added a TON of time to the process just
> >> >decoding the stuff when it comes in.
> >> Bad luck for you.
> >Well, depends on your definition of bad luck.  I didn't feel like spending m
> >money, so the time offset the cost in this case.
>
> Bad luck, because you really don't know what you miss...

In your opinion...

>
> >> >No, Linux isn't free.
> >> It is free, but not necessarily in the sense of gratis.
> >Well, that's the bottom line to many people.  The noble sense of a 'free'
> >project doesn't move a lot of people into supporting it.
>
> Oh yes, it does. Look at comp.os.linux and comp.unix.bsd and you'll see it
> does. You forget a few simple facts. Free software allows people to have
> all the sources. Thus many people port the software to other platforms. Only
> well written software is portable across a wide variety of platforms. That
> means that that software can't rely on idiosyncracies of a certain platform.
>
> >I have several
> >clients who would rather pay for a commercial software package rather than u
> >a 'free' one, simply because they don't trust the motives behind what is now
> >'free' system.  It takes all kinds to make the world go around.
>
> What is your point? I mean, I don't see what this has to do with free softwar
> I think it shows more about the shortminded vision of your clients than about
> free software. Really, because all software that is copyrighted with a GNU
> copyleft is save. First because a licence can't be removed. Second because th
> GNU copyleft itself says that you can choose which version of the licence you
> want to use. The version 2 copyleft grants almost everything except making th
> software proprietary. Conclusion: you can do almost everything you want with
> free software and that freedom can't be removed. So there is no reason to not
> trust the motives.

If you don't see what this has to do with free software, perhaps you need to go
back and re-read what I wrote.  I'll give you a specific example.  I had a
client who was looking for TCP/IP for their PCs, so people could talk to their
VAXen while still running under Novell.  I suggested and implemented the
Clarkson drivers with NCSA telnet on a trial basis, but they still went out and
spent thousands of dollars on Wollongong.

Shortsighted?  Maybe.  They had legitimate concerns about future support.  The
point is that they (along with many others) get a warm fuzzy feeling when they
buy a commercially successful package that they don't get with a free system.
Unfortunately, this attitude is quite prevalent in the corporate world,
particularly in the PC world, where free exchange of source code is not common
practice.  Given that Linux is a product in the PC world, it's going to have to
fight this attitude.

>
> The motives of the FSF, which is responsible for all the GNU software, is
> written down in the GNU Manifesto. Do you really think that companies like
> NeXT Inc., BSDI, Mt Xinu, etc. are more stupid than your clients? They ship
> GCC with their systems, and maybe many other GNU utilities too.
>

Did I say that anyone was stupid?  C'mon, stop putting words into my articles
that aren't there.  The companies you mentioned haven't even started to make a
dent into the DOS-based PC world where this attitude is strong.  That doesn't
make them bad, wrong, or 'stupid' <your term>, yet it doesn't make the bad
attitude regarding free software go away.

> >> >There is
> >> >definitely a case to be made for paying the bucks and getting Coherent.
> >> Coherent costs fl. 350,- here in Holland. One hour long distance is about
> >> fl. 6,- (in the evening). A decent UNIX book costs about >fl. 60,-. So buy
> >> Coherent is equal to buying 3 to 4 UNIX books and 10 hours downloading.
> >Well, Linux costs $60 to buy the SLS disks.  Combine that with a good Unix b
> >at ~$30, you're already there.  It's a wash.
>
> But I already had the UNIX books and I didn't need 10 hours to download it. I
> only shows that for the price of Coherent, you can have a better system with
> more than 3 good books instead of one and still pay less. Note, this is a wor
> kind scenario. If you don't need the books, you save yourself bucks. If you
> can copy it from a friend you save bucks. For Coherent there is one way to sa
> money: to not buy it.

You, however are not the typical person who might considering buying Coherent.
Your scenario only shows that *you* could have a better <in your opinion>
system and some bucks for the same money.  Nothing you have posted alters the
facts regarding the cost of Linux, unless you are prepared to become a
clearinghouse for distribution of Linux to those who can't get it easily from
the net.

>
> >> Linux has a Taylor UUCP port. The GNU emacs helpfiles which are part of Ta
> >> UUCP are very good, just like the rest of the Taylor UUCP package. There i
> >> more information availlable than you (and I) know, but finding it is often
> >> big problem.
> >Precisely why a decent manual up-front can make a big difference.
>
> You can buy a decent manual in the book store. You can have more than 3 for
> the price of the one that is delivered with Coherent. Any on-line documentati
> is an additional (and often also free) help. The Dutch USENET backbone uses
> Taylor UUCP instead of the normal UNIX UUCP because it is much better then th
> commercial UUCP's that are bundled with UNIX.

But you just told me Linux was free.  Now you're saying that I can buy a book.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions that Linux does indeed cost something.  You
take such pride in the money you *didn't* spend on Linux.  That's great.  I'm
happy for you.  There are others out in the real world who aren't so fortunate,
and will have to spend $$$ to learn how to set up and use Linux.  It is to
those folks that Coherent is a legitimate competitor to Linux.

>
> Look, free in the sense of the GNU copyleft doesn't mean gratis. Free in the
> GNU sense means that you are not limited as to what you want to do with that
> software. If you want to copy it, fine. If you want to change it, fine. As lo
> as you don't make it a proprietary piece of software.
>
> BTW, this message is written on a free editor, posted by a free newsreader,
> processed by a free news package and transported by a free UUCP program suite
> And everything was done on a free operating system.
>

I stand by my contention that there is a case that can be made for buying
Coherent.  Nothing you've posted alters that fact.  Linux is good, it may be
better in some ways.  The free concept is a good one (as I've pointed out
before).  I'm not bashing Linux here.  I'm merely pointing out that it's not
the panacea you claim it to be.  It's not free.  It costs money.  There are
alternatives.  There are people who will shy away from anything that doesn't
come in a box with a manual.  You may think that's silly, but it's the real
world.  Mark Williams Company has identified this situation and produces a
product which addresses those concerns.  What's wrong with that?



|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|