Mentec US is gone!
Stanley F. Quayle
apparently closed their US office. www.mentec.com is their world-wide
site, but there's no mention of PDP-11 anywhere.
Maybe this is a sign that PDP-11 is *really* gone...
johnhre...@yahoo.com
Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> www.mentec-inc.com, the link to the US Mentec site, is gone. They've
> apparently closed their US office. www.mentec.com is their world-wide
> site, but there's no mention of PDP-11 anywhere.
>
www.mentec-inc.com gives me an "Under Construction" page while
www.mentec.com gives me a server error. As far as I remember the main
site never did mention the PDP stuff.
> Maybe this is a sign that PDP-11 is *really* gone...
Maybe this means Mentec might be open to discussions about a PDP-11
Hobbyist program again.
Bill Gunshannon
Wait..... I'll look out the window......
Nope, no pigs flying by yet.....
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Bob Koehler
>
> Maybe this is a sign that PDP-11 is *really* gone...
Nope, there's still one sitting in my basement.
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> Wait..... I'll look out the window......
> Nope, no pigs flying by yet.....
But Pigs don't use PDP-11s, Bugs use them.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Bill Gunshannon
Charles Richmond
>
> In article <1164914470.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "johnhre...@yahoo.com" <johnhre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> >> www.mentec-inc.com, the link to the US Mentec site, is gone. They've
> >> apparently closed their US office. www.mentec.com is their world-wide
> >> site, but there's no mention of PDP-11 anywhere.
> >>
> >
> > www.mentec-inc.com gives me an "Under Construction" page while
> > www.mentec.com gives me a server error. As far as I remember the main
> > site never did mention the PDP stuff.
> >
> >> Maybe this is a sign that PDP-11 is *really* gone...
> >
> > Maybe this means Mentec might be open to discussions about a PDP-11
> > Hobbyist program again.
>
> Wait..... I'll look out the window......
>
> Nope, no pigs flying by yet.....
>
to freeze over...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
John Whistler
know how this affects the US company, as they were never closely
aligned from the beginning. The Irish company hasn't supported PDP's
since the late 90's (roughly the same time I left them, but that's just
coincidence!). Their web site is up and running now, but absolutely no
mention of PDP's.
John.
In article <4t8ph7F...@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
madcrow
> Mentec Ireland has been taken over by a company called Calyx. I don't
> know how this affects the US company, as they were never closely
> aligned from the beginning. The Irish company hasn't supported PDP's
> since the late 90's (roughly the same time I left them, but that's just
> coincidence!). Their web site is up and running now, but absolutely no
> mention of PDP's.
>
> John.
What I'd like to know is what does this mean for the status of the
PDP-11 software. Does that move along to Calyx? Does it revert to HP?
Is it left totally abandoned? Certainly reverting to HP would be good
for us hobbyists as they've been amazing to the nerd community in a
dozen and one ways (The OpenVMS Hobby program, giving away actual
physical copies of HP-UX to anyone who asks, releasing their graphing
calculator firmware under the GPL, open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and
layered products...) and would probably be more willing to allow the
nerd with an -11 in his basement to run DEC OSes and stuff without
making him (or her) buy an expensive license.
No idea whether Calyx would be good or bad, but it's hard to imagine
them being nastier to hobbyists than Mentec was.
If the copyright is just left orphaned, then I guess that's OK for
hobbyists as well, as it opens up the doors of free redistribution, but
would probably be bad for those proud few still using the -11 in their
businesses.
Any ideas?
Rich Alderson
> What I'd like to know is what does this mean for the status of the PDP-11
> software. Does that move along to Calyx? Does it revert to HP? Is it left
> totally abandoned? Certainly reverting to HP would be good for us hobbyists
> as they've been amazing to the nerd community in a dozen and one ways (The
> OpenVMS Hobby program, giving away actual physical copies of HP-UX to anyone
> who asks, releasing their graphing calculator firmware under the GPL,
> open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and layered products...) and would probably be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> more willing to allow the nerd with an -11 in his basement to run DEC OSes
> and stuff without making him (or her) buy an expensive license.
I'm not going to address the rest of this, but I have to point out that the
36-bit hobbyist license was created by DIGITAL, through the offices of an
engineering VP by the name of Robert Supnik, prior to the sale of the company
to Compaq. HP never had a thing to do with it--and with the sale of Digital to
Compaq the 36-bit IP moved to XKL anyway.
--
Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
ne...@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
--Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |
Bill Gunshannon
"madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> writes:
> John Whistler wrote:
>> Mentec Ireland has been taken over by a company called Calyx. I don't
>> know how this affects the US company, as they were never closely
>> aligned from the beginning. The Irish company hasn't supported PDP's
>> since the late 90's (roughly the same time I left them, but that's just
>> coincidence!). Their web site is up and running now, but absolutely no
>> mention of PDP's.
>>
>> John.
>
> What I'd like to know is what does this mean for the status of the
> PDP-11 software. Does that move along to Calyx?
The norm is for assets to go to the company that does the buying. The
big question is more on the status of the American arm of Mentec as they
were the only ones who seemed to have anything to do with the PDP-11.
> Does it revert to HP?
Not likely. And also not likely that HP would even want it.
> Is it left totally abandoned?
Legally, that never happens.
> Certainly reverting to HP would be good
> for us hobbyists as they've been amazing to the nerd community in a
> dozen and one ways (The OpenVMS Hobby program, giving away actual
> physical copies of HP-UX to anyone who asks, releasing their graphing
> calculator firmware under the GPL, open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and
> layered products...) and would probably be more willing to allow the
> nerd with an -11 in his basement to run DEC OSes and stuff without
> making him (or her) buy an expensive license.
Tell that to the people who wanted permission to run Ultrix-32. Hp's
response was go run NetBSD.
>
> No idea whether Calyx would be good or bad, but it's hard to imagine
> them being nastier to hobbyists than Mentec was.
It is much more likely that they will have no interest in the PDP-11
at all and will just let it languish. That, of course, will not give
hobbyists the carte-blanche they want.
>
> If the copyright is just left orphaned, then I guess that's OK for
> hobbyists as well, as it opens up the doors of free redistribution, but
> would probably be bad for those proud few still using the -11 in their
> businesses.
And, it would also be illegal. Copyrights are never "abandoned". Unless
the owner explicitly releases the software either to the public domain
or under something like the BSD License or the Gnu Public Virus then it
remains their property and bound by their rules. That means without an
explicit license to do so, it would be illegal to use it on anything.
>
> Any ideas?
Well, people might try a dose of reality. This probably signals the
impending end to the RT-11/RSTS/RSX era.
Richard
"madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
<1166132485.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> thusly:
> [...] open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and
>layered products...) [...]
When did this happen and where's the source, Luke? :-)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Giorgio Ungarelli
news:4ueiueF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> If the copyright is just left orphaned, then I guess that's OK for
>> hobbyists as well, as it opens up the doors of free redistribution, but
>> would probably be bad for those proud few still using the -11 in their
>> businesses.
>
> And, it would also be illegal. Copyrights are never "abandoned". Unless
> the owner explicitly releases the software either to the public domain
> or under something like the BSD License or the Gnu Public Virus then it
> remains their property and bound by their rules. That means without an
> explicit license to do so, it would be illegal to use it on anything.
>
But if nobody is there to "enforce" it (the company no longer exists and/or
the new owners can't be bothered to do anything about it), does it really
matter?
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Well, people might try a dose of reality. This probably signals the
> impending end to the RT-11/RSTS/RSX era.
>
In a production environment, probably. But what about in the hobbyist
environment?
Richard
"Giorgio Ungarelli" <giorgio at ungarelli dot net> spake the secret code
<4582eeaf$1...@news.bluewin.ch> thusly:
>But if nobody is there to "enforce" it (the company no longer exists and/or
>the new owners can't be bothered to do anything about it), does it really
>matter?
Yes, because at a later date they can always decide that they *do*
care and then you'll be in a situation where you've knowingly violated
the law and they can hold you accountable for it.
Just because a house is unlocked doesn't give you right of entry.
Rich Alderson
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> "madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
> <1166132485.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> thusly:
>> [...] open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and
>> layered products...) [...]
> When did this happen and where's the source, Luke? :-)
As I noted in a followup to madcrow, it was prior to the Compaq acquisition.
See http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/ for details, including a copy of the
license. Yes, that's Tim Shoppa's company serving it up.
sho...@trailing-edge.com
> In article <1164914470.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "johnhre...@yahoo.com" <johnhre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> >> www.mentec-inc.com, the link to the US Mentec site, is gone. They've
> >> apparently closed their US office. www.mentec.com is their world-wide
> >> site, but there's no mention of PDP-11 anywhere.
> >>
> >
> > www.mentec-inc.com gives me an "Under Construction" page while
> > www.mentec.com gives me a server error. As far as I remember the main
> > site never did mention the PDP stuff.
> >
> >> Maybe this is a sign that PDP-11 is *really* gone...
> >
> > Maybe this means Mentec might be open to discussions about a PDP-11
> > Hobbyist program again.
>
> Wait..... I'll look out the window......
>
> Nope, no pigs flying by yet.....
What you and others in this thread have so far neglected is that Mentec
did not outright "own" RSX, RT, and RSTS/E in the sense that you think.
My eyes always quickly glazed over whenever the full details were being
discussed, but my impression in the mid 90's was that Mentec was
required by agreement with DEC to:
1. Sell a copy of the documentation along with the software license.
2. The documentation was still being printed by DEC and Mentec had to
buy it from DEC.
3. DEC's cooperation in printing manuals was not always the most
tlmely.
4. DEC's prices for the documentation would be regarded by many here as
"too high". Of course in some cases we were talking about tens of
thousands of sheets of paper in fancy binders (although I recall some
mini-crisis in the 90's when the proper color binders became
unavailable.)
Note that the above is mostly heresay, I never actually saw the details
of the agreement between DEC and Mentec. Most of the details I knew, I
knew about ONLY because there was some mini-crisis in getting
documentation from DEC so that a license could be sold.
As of the time I stopped pushing heavily for hobbyist distributions
(around 2000) some of the difficulties I knew about, and others that I
never understood at all, were still being wrangled between the lawyers.
Some progress had been made. Mentec at one point had a web page with
pictures of the hobbyist distro CD's I had pressed (this was, I think
circa 2003).
I really hope that someday this all gets resolved. I had a lot of fun
recovering old copies of RSTS/E, RT-11, and RSX-11 for the project, and
many folks who read here helped out, Thanks!
Tim.
Richard
Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> spake the secret code
<mddwt4s...@panix5.panix.com> thusly:
>legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
>
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>> "madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> spake the secret code
>> <1166132485.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> thusly:
>
>>> [...] open-sourcing the PDP-10 OSes and
>>> layered products...) [...]
>
>> When did this happen and where's the source, Luke? :-)
>
>As I noted in a followup to madcrow, it was prior to the Compaq acquisition.
>
>See http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/ for details, including a copy of the
>license. Yes, that's Tim Shoppa's company serving it up.
Cool, thanks.
Rob Brown
> My eyes always quickly glazed over whenever the full details were being
> discussed, but my impression in the mid 90's was that Mentec was
> required by agreement with DEC to:
> ...
> 2. The documentation was still being printed by DEC and Mentec had
> to buy it from DEC.
That would explain why, when we got new RSX documentation for Y2K that
it came with Compaq covers.
> ...
> 4. DEC's prices for the documentation would be regarded by many
> here as "too high". Of course in some cases we were talking about
> tens of thousands of sheets of paper in fancy binders (although I
> recall some mini-crisis in the 90's when the proper color binders
> became unavailable.)
I could go along with that. I don't know what the price was, but the
manuals we received were definitely of lower quality than the older
manuals we already had. Mostly because they were photocopies of the
V4.3 manuals. The V4.3 manuals had at least two colour printing for
examples etc. All became b/w once photocopied. All came in white(!)
binders without the inserts for the front of the binder and with wrong
colour spine inserts.
--
Rob Brown b r o w n a t g m c l d o t c o m
G. Michaels Consulting Ltd. (780)438-9343 (voice)
Edmonton (780)437-3367 (FAX)
http://gmcl.com/
Bill Gunshannon
"Giorgio Ungarelli" <giorgio at ungarelli dot net> writes:
> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:4ueiueF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> If the copyright is just left orphaned, then I guess that's OK for
>>> hobbyists as well, as it opens up the doors of free redistribution, but
>>> would probably be bad for those proud few still using the -11 in their
>>> businesses.
>>
>> And, it would also be illegal. Copyrights are never "abandoned". Unless
>> the owner explicitly releases the software either to the public domain
>> or under something like the BSD License or the Gnu Public Virus then it
>> remains their property and bound by their rules. That means without an
>> explicit license to do so, it would be illegal to use it on anything.
>>
>
> But if nobody is there to "enforce" it (the company no longer exists and/or
> the new owners can't be bothered to do anything about it), does it really
> matter?
So if the cops ain't looking it's OK for me to heist your TV, right?
>
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Well, people might try a dose of reality. This probably signals the
>> impending end to the RT-11/RSTS/RSX era.
>>
>
> In a production environment, probably. But what about in the hobbyist
> environment?
Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
Thierry Dussuet
> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
That's ok, it just sits around else :-)
I think the problem is not that people want to steal Mentec's licenses but
rather that most don't have the capital to pay a "real" license.
Since they are ready to pay a smaller fee, as the VMS Hobbyist program has
shown, I think they _would_ make more profits if they were allowed to just hand
a copy of the distribution media or allow to copy it.
Thierry
jmfb...@aol.com
"Giorgio Ungarelli" <giorgio at ungarelli dot net> wrote:
>"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>news:4ueiueF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> If the copyright is just left orphaned, then I guess that's OK for
>>> hobbyists as well, as it opens up the doors of free redistribution, but
>>> would probably be bad for those proud few still using the -11 in their
>>> businesses.
>>
>> And, it would also be illegal. Copyrights are never "abandoned". Unless
>> the owner explicitly releases the software either to the public domain
>> or under something like the BSD License or the Gnu Public Virus then it
>> remains their property and bound by their rules. That means without an
>> explicit license to do so, it would be illegal to use it on anything.
>>
>
>But if nobody is there to "enforce" it (the company no longer exists and/or
>the new owners can't be bothered to do anything about it), does it really
>matter?
and see if it says anything.
/BAH
Bill Gunshannon
Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
$10?
Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it. Knowing how
they have been treated in the past and the fact that this attitude has
not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its errors,
I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to end
the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
ChrisQuayle
>
> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
> $10?
>
> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it. Knowing how
> they have been treated in the past and the fact that this attitude has
> not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its errors,
> I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to end
> the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
> hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
>
> bill
>
C'mon Bill, a bit of a dodgy argument in this case. Fact: Hobbyists are
interested in running old dec os's for amusement or interest, not for
commercial gain. As for Mentec, no-one seems to be sure if they are even
interested in the product anymore. If, for example, I send an email to
Mentec and they either fail to reply, or tell me that they no longer
sell the product or support it or even that they don't know what i'm
talking about and / or no, you can't have it for free either. The
copyright still applies, but the product is effectively abandoned and no
longer available at all except by using existing media out there in the
field.
In this case, what do hobbyists do ?. If the product has effectively
been abandoned by it's owner, it may be technically illegal to run it,
but is anyone likely to care, ?. Of course, we would all like to live
within the law, but if a vendor is being intentionally obstructive,
there's a reasonable argument for just doing it anyway, especially if no
loss is generated for any of the interested parties.
I run Ultrix 3.1 here perfectly legally on an 11/53 and have no real
time at present to play with that or pursue other pdp interests, but it
would be good to have a definitive answer from Mentec as to the
product's status in terms of licensing, can we or can't we ?...
Chris
madcrow
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
> I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>
> bill
I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
don't that will be sad, but that's life.
Bill Gunshannon
ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
>> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
>> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
>> $10?
>>
>> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
>> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
>> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
>> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
>> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
>> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it. Knowing how
>> they have been treated in the past and the fact that this attitude has
>> not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its errors,
>> I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to end
>> the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
>> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
>> hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> C'mon Bill, a bit of a dodgy argument in this case. Fact: Hobbyists are
> interested in running old dec os's for amusement or interest, not for
> commercial gain.
Irrelevant. You don't own the IP. The owner of the IP gets to decide who
can and can't use it and under what circumstances.
> As for Mentec, no-one seems to be sure if they are even
> interested in the product anymore.
Irrelevant. They still own it. Define "interest"! Just because they
won't talk to hobbyists about it doesn't mean they have no interest.
There are still a lot of people using the PDP-11 OSes commercially and,
they seem to have no problem getting in touch with Mentec or arranging
for licenses when needed.
> If, for example, I send an email to
> Mentec and they either fail to reply, or tell me that they no longer
> sell the product or support it or even that they don't know what i'm
> talking about and / or no, you can't have it for free either. The
> copyright still applies, but the product is effectively abandoned and no
> longer available at all except by using existing media out there in the
> field.
All within their rights as the IP owner.
>
> In this case, what do hobbyists do ?.
Well, if they have any moral compunction, they refuse to violate someone
elses IP rights. There are alternatives, like BSD 2.11 and Ultrix-11
(and now, I guess UCSD Pascal V.II). Or they can do what I have suggested
and start a project to clone the OSes they have an interest in like Linux
did for Unix.
> If the product has effectively
> been abandoned by it's owner,
1. You didn't describe "abandonment" above, you described a company that
just said "No!". What part of "No" didn't you understand?
> it may be technically illegal to run it,
> but is anyone likely to care, ?.
Do you want to be the test case if they decide at a later date that they
do care? if they can show where they told you "No" and you went ahead
and used it anyway, what do you think your chances in court will be?
And before you say, "OK, I won't ask them." stop and think how stupid
that would sound in front of the Judge, "Well, your Honor. I was pretty
sure they would say 'No' so I just didn't ask them!"
> Of course, we would all like to live
> within the law, but if a vendor is being intentionally obstructive,
It's his property. he is not being "obstructive" just because he won't
do what YOU want him to do. You have no right to make any use of his IP
without his permission and no reasonable expectation that he would bend
to your will.
> there's a reasonable argument for just doing it anyway,
Go back and read what I just said above. "Reasonableness" says the exact
opposite. It is his IP to do with as he pleases. You have absolutely no
right to it. Period. End of story. Of course, hobbyists could always
offer to buy this IP from Mentec. However, I doubt they are interested
in selling and if they were I doubt hobbyists would be able or even willing
to raise the needed money. The fact is, hobbyist want it for nothing.
> especially if no
> loss is generated for any of the interested parties.
It is not your property and therefore not your decision to decide if
there is loss to any "interested parties" (whatever that is supposed to
mean.) How much loss would there have to be? $1? $1000? $1,000,000?
Not your call as you don;t own it.
>
> I run Ultrix 3.1 here perfectly legally on an 11/53
Of course. Because the owner of the IP has said it's alright.
> and have no real
> time at present to play with that or pursue other pdp interests, but it
> would be good to have a definitive answer from Mentec as to the
> product's status in terms of licensing, can we or can't we ?...
That has been quite clear all along. Commercial licenses are still for
sale. There is no hobbyist license. How much clearer does it need to be?
They make no money from hobbyists and are not interested in even discussing
the matter, which is why they usually just ignore requests that don't come
from obvious real potential commercial customers.
Hobbyists don't like the situation. I don't like the situation. But I
respect their IP and won't violate it. Sadly, the majority of the rest
of the PDP-11 hobbyist community does not share my opinion. And I still
hold (and have seen evidence supporting the notion) that this attitude is
the primary reason why we don't have a hobbyist program today and never
will.
ChrisQuayle
Why do you get in such a lather about this ?. Methinks you protesteth
too much :-). I suppose all the software you have ever used, even for
testing, has been properly licenced, hasn't it. I'm not saying we should
just take the law into our own hands, but it would be nice to have some
indication. My rule on licenced software is that it's ok to install for
evaluation. That is, is it worth paying for ?. If so, I buy a copy if
affordable, otherwise it doesn't get used and I find a substitute. It
may not be following the letter of the law, but certainly the spirit in
"valuable ip" terms.
In the absence of a clear yes or no, one might think (yes, maybe
wrongly) that they don't care about hobbyist use, but at the same time
don't want to give carte blanche, as this in iteslf would require quite
a lot of effort and expense on their part to frame the necessary
documentation. Why should they - they may have originally bought the ip,
but would guess that it's getting to the commercially valueless stage by
now, so they don't won't want to spend any more resources on it, even to
give it away. I wouldn't think they could be bothered setting up a
hobbyits license either. PDP is not core business and the financial
return negligable. Net result, systems in limbo.
You say commercial licenses are still available - any idea what these
cost, or do Mentec not answer calls on the subject anymore ?. The other
question would be, what pre Mentec versions can we run legally, if any ?...
Chris
Bill Gunshannon
ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> writes:
>
> Why do you get in such a lather about this ?. Methinks you protesteth
> too much :-).
Well, for one reason because being one of those who will not use
software illegally I was directly affected by Mentec's stopping
work on a Hobbyist License. I don't protest, I tell it like it is.
I have actually seen software piracy cases and was even notified
in one case that I might be called to testify in court about it.
> I suppose all the software you have ever used, even for
> testing, has been properly licenced, hasn't it.
Of course it has. Why is that so hard to understand? And, I have
fought a constant battle to keep all of the machines under my service
at the University in the same state to include fighting with professors
and students who "just want to install it for a few days". Not in my
lab!!
> I'm not saying we should
> just take the law into our own hands, but it would be nice to have some
> indication.
Indication of what? Mentec has been quite clear. No Hobbyist License.
What further indication do you want?
> My rule on licenced software is that it's ok to install for
> evaluation.
And the courts don't agree with you. You have on those rights granted to
you by the owner. If he doesn't explicitly allow that then it is illegal
and immoral. But I know I am not going to change your mind or your behavior.
Court could, however.
> That is, is it worth paying for ?. If so, I buy a copy if
> affordable, otherwise it doesn't get used and I find a substitute. It
> may not be following the letter of the law, but certainly the spirit in
> "valuable ip" terms.
No, it doesn't follow the letter or the "spirit" of the law (whatever
that is supposed to be). It is just plain wrong.
>
> In the absence of a clear yes or no, one might think (yes, maybe
> wrongly) that they don't care about hobbyist use, but at the same time
> don't want to give carte blanche, as this in iteslf would require quite
> a lot of effort and expense on their part to frame the necessary
> documentation.
You seem a bit confused here. What they have not done is say that
hobbyists can use it. That's waht you want. Quite the contrary,
by dropping all negotiations for a hobbyist license they have very
plainly said, "No". Unfortunately, it seems the hobbyist community
can't hear anythng if it isn't "Yes". ANd they are never going to
hear that.
> Why should they - they may have originally bought the ip,
> but would guess that it's getting to the commercially valueless stage by
> now,
And you would be wrong. I personally know of a lot of people still using
(and paying for) it commercially. Just because they don't advertise in
PC World doesn't mean it is dead. How about VMS? Is it also abandoned?
I just read a note from someone who has posted a cash reward for anyone
who can show him a single VMS advertising in the major IT Press. He
specifically mentioned that up to this point, no one has claimed it.
Does that mean VMS is "getting to the commercially valueless stage" and
would be alright to just take it if there wasn't a hobbyist program?
> so they don't won't want to spend any more resources on it, even to
> give it away. I wouldn't think they could be bothered setting up a
> hobbyits license either. PDP is not core business and the financial
> return negligable. Net result, systems in limbo.
But that is your opinion with no basis in fact. They still sell it and
maintain it. They just don't include you in the distribution for the
memoes. How short-sighted of them....
>
> You say commercial licenses are still available - any idea what these
> cost,
Yeah, more than you would be willing to pay, I am sure. But I don't
work for Mentec so I am not going to give you a quote.
> or do Mentec not answer calls on the subject anymore ?.
I have had dealings with them within the past year. As, I am sure, have
the many people who still actively license the products they sell.
> The other
> question would be, what pre Mentec versions can we run legally, if any ?...
On real hardware none. There are some who say that the current versions
of SIMH are covered by the license Bob Supnik (I believe) arranged with
them several years ago. I am not sure as I don't think current versions
of SIMH meet the definition of an Emulator in the License. But I will
defer to Bob on this as he negotiated it and probably has a much better
understanding of what the Agreement actually meant.
As I said above, I am sure nothing I say will change your mind or your
actions. But, I respect Mentec's IP and I will actively attempt to
dispel the strange nothions that frequently pop up here claiming that
this software is up for grabs and hobbyists are free to do what they
please with it. Who knows, maybe at some point I will convince enough
people that Mentec will see a change int he general attitude of the
PDP-11 hobbyist communty and will be willing to re-visit the whole
hobbyist license idea. Or maybe I just spent too much time reading
Don Quioxte when I was younger!!
ChrisQuayle
> In article <QpZgh.12974$n36....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>,
> ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Why do you get in such a lather about this ?. Methinks you protesteth
>>too much :-).
>
>
> Well, for one reason because being one of those who will not use
> software illegally I was directly affected by Mentec's stopping
> work on a Hobbyist License. I don't protest, I tell it like it is.
> I have actually seen software piracy cases and was even notified
> in one case that I might be called to testify in court about it.
>
If you have been doing most of the work to try to get hobbyist license,
then I can see why you would be annoyed about the attitude that says
everything should free etc. It's an abuse of any possible good will that
might exist otherwise. Problem is that the tendency is towards open
source software, even solaris is open source now, perhaps sets a
precedent in some minds that everything should be, when in fact the real
world depends on revenue to survive.
What's that saying ? - the universe is absolutely fair and everything
must be paid or accounted for in the end...
Chris
jmfb...@aol.com
Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
kind of license.
/BAH
ChrisQuayle
To do that, we need to get some critical mass together. Assuming each
hobbyist was willing to pay, say $100 for the right to run rsx or rt11
on old hardware, how many would be needed to make it attractive to Mentec ?.
The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
usually shoe string or no cost at all...
Chris
Michael Kraemer
>
> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
a good business model in this case, IMHO.
I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
a rotten corpse.
Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.
Thierry Dussuet
> In article <slrneo7ied....@mars.family>,
> Thierry Dussuet <thi...@dussuet.lugs.ch> writes:
>> On 2006-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>>> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>>> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>>
>> That's ok, it just sits around else :-)
>>
>> I think the problem is not that people want to steal Mentec's licenses but
>> rather that most don't have the capital to pay a "real" license.
>> Since they are ready to pay a smaller fee, as the VMS Hobbyist program has
>> shown, I think they _would_ make more profits if they were allowed to just hand
>> a copy of the distribution media or allow to copy it.
>
> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
> $10?
My point was not that people should steal the licenses or copy stuff around but
that in your example the publisher could sell older editions for less money
than the newest best one. Students not able to pay $180 could then maybe
manage to pay $90 and still have a somewhat actual edition of the book, and the
publisher would have made money as a "bonus".
> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it.
I never said anything else...
> Knowing how they have been treated in the past and the fact that this
> attitude has not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its
> errors, I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to
> end the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the hobbyist
> community. A sad comentary.
True... But what is your vision of how to change this?
What I see is that it is very difficult to change the minds of such a big group
of people. Fancy changing the official language of the USA to Russian :-)
Thierry
ChrisQuayle
Sorry, wrong attitude and I have to side with Bill on this. How do you
know that it hasn't been worked on in ages, or what their investment has
been over the years ?. One assumes that you don't object to paying for
Billyware os and packages for your pc, even though you may only be
non-commercially surfing the web or playing games on it. Well, you
probably do, but buy it anyway and just accept it as a fact of life. The
production and distribution cost of Windows must be a small fraction of
what they charge for it and they sell *lots* of them, which is why they
make billions of $ profit. Now translate this to Mentec, a much smaller
company, where they don't have the market share or volume to defray
production, support and ongoing development costs. You still think they
should give it away ?. It's not even clear if they have ever made much
money from the "ip" they bought from Dec - breakeven if they were lucky
over the years would be my guess.
I write enbedded software (amongst other things) to earn a crust and
spend thousands of hours per year doing it to pay the bills. We are all
gratefull for the dedicated souls who do the same for the open source
movement, but it's an insult to think that just because it's a gift,
it's valueless, or that any of it is done without significant time
effort and dedication.
So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...
Chris
jmfb...@aol.com
ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <1166293437.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>> "madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>>>>property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>>>>using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>>>>I am beginning to think maybe the RIAA is right!!
>>>>
>>>>bill
>>>
>>>I don't disagree with the fact that we have no RIGHTS to use the old
>>>stuff, I'm just saying that maybe the new owners of Mentec will be more
>>>willing to give us that PRIVILEGE than the former owners... If they
>>>don't that will be sad, but that's life.
>>
>>
>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>> kind of license.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>To do that, we need to get some critical mass together. Assuming each
>hobbyist was willing to pay, say $100 for the right to run rsx or rt11
>on old hardware, how many would be needed to make it attractive to Mentec ?.
I'm not the one to ask. You need to ask the people who own the
rights. Not just some random email. You write it properly just
like any business letter.
>
>The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>usually shoe string or no cost at all...
Oh, bullshit. People pay thousands of dollars on their interests.
What is unusual about the computer biz is that the younger
generations believe that they should get everything free when
it comes to system hard/software. This is a side effect
of micshit's business model. People have been brought up
to assume that software is generated out of fairy dust when
"They" say poof.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Michael Kraemer <M.Kr...@gsi.de> wrote:
>ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>
>>
>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>
>I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
>Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
>a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
According to Bill, this is not true. If he's done business
with them, then the bits have changed.
>Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
Why do they have to release new versions? That in no
way implies that the RSX isn't "active".
>Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
>a good business model in this case, IMHO.
Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. Mentex
has to continually add bells and whistles and bugs or
else give their products away free. You have been
bred, born and raised on Micshit's business model. I suggest
that you wean yourself. The ONLY reason the PDP-11
stuff is so good is because we got paid to do the work. And
customers did the paying. AS long as customers continued to
pay, we shipped them a distribution set of software.
>I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
>shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
>a rotten corpse.
If that's all you want to pay for, you will never get
the good stuff that is still being cared for.
>Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.
I would much rather have some company own this stuff than
have it abandoned. You do not know anything about software
monitor development and maintencance.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>>
>>
>> I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
>> Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
>> a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
>> Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
>> Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
>> a good business model in this case, IMHO.
>> I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
>> shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
>> a rotten corpse.
>> Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.
>>
>
>Sorry, wrong attitude and I have to side with Bill on this. How do you
>know that it hasn't been worked on in ages, or what their investment has
>been over the years ?. One assumes that you don't object to paying for
>Billyware os and packages for your pc,
But doesn't overtly pay for micshitware. That's why he and
a lot of other people believe that all software should be free.
since they cannot physically touch it, it must not cost anything
to produce.
<snip>
>So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...
Open sources are not free either. Since this is so new w.r.t.
production methods, it has not gone through its aging process.
/BAH
Michael Kraemer
>
> Sorry, wrong attitude
I disagree, sorry.
> and I have to side with Bill on this.
Then I don't know what you complain about.
> How do you
> know that it hasn't been worked on in ages, or what their investment has
> been over the years ?.
That's my impression. Feel free to teach me otherwise.
> One assumes that you don't object to paying for
> Billyware os and packages for your pc,
I avoid billyware wherever I can (and quite successfully so far).
> even though you may only be
> non-commercially surfing the web or playing games on it. Well, you
> probably do, but buy it anyway and just accept it as a fact of life.
I never accepted M$ as a fact of life.
> The
> production and distribution cost of Windows must be a small fraction of
> what they charge for it and they sell *lots* of them, which is why they
> make billions of $ profit. Now translate this to Mentec, a much smaller
> company, where they don't have the market share or volume to defray
> production, support and ongoing development costs.
Well, I write these lines through eComStation,
the f'up to OS/2, maintained by a smallish company
called Serenity Systems. I paid $$ for it,
it came complete with TCP/IP, gfx (an no PAKs,
just a single license key). The next version
costs $$$, which still is a fair price for an otherwise
dead OS, considering that they do at least some development
on it.
> You still think they
> should give it away ?.
I never said they should give it away,
just charge the actual processing cost,
which should be in sync with hobbyist reality,
i.e. some $$ or low $$$.
> It's not even clear if they have ever made much
> money from the "ip" they bought from Dec - breakeven if they were lucky
> over the years would be my guess.
Well, the stuff that you refer to is so stone old
that one can assume that development costs have already been
recuperated ages ago. And if they paid DEC an arm and a leg
for a dead horse - their fault. But the fact they still
exist indicates that it can't have killed them.
> I write enbedded software (amongst other things) to earn a crust and
> spend thousands of hours per year doing it to pay the bills. We are all
> gratefull for the dedicated souls who do the same for the open source
> movement, but it's an insult to think that just because it's a gift,
> it's valueless, or that any of it is done without significant time
> effort and dedication.
Who said so ? Certainly not me.
I just pointed out that it's not people's
(and not my) mindset everything should be free,
but something which has hobbyist value should
also have hobbyist prices.
>
> So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...
>
what has all that to do with open source ?
jmfb...@aol.com
>> How do you
>> know that it hasn't been worked on in ages, or what their investment has
>> been over the years ?.
>
>That's my impression. Feel free to teach me otherwise.
Bill did in two posts that I've read.
>> One assumes that you don't object to paying for
>> Billyware os and packages for your pc,
>
>I avoid billyware wherever I can (and quite successfully so far).
No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
model which happens to create useless, short-term shit.
>
>> even though you may only be
>> non-commercially surfing the web or playing games on it. Well, you
>> probably do, but buy it anyway and just accept it as a fact of life.
>
>I never accepted M$ as a fact of life.
But you seem to want all other software manufacturers to use
his business model.
>
>> The
>> production and distribution cost of Windows must be a small fraction of
>> what they charge for it and they sell *lots* of them, which is why they
>> make billions of $ profit. Now translate this to Mentec, a much smaller
>> company, where they don't have the market share or volume to defray
>> production, support and ongoing development costs.
>
>Well, I write these lines through eComStation,
>the f'up to OS/2, maintained by a smallish company
>called Serenity Systems. I paid $$ for it,
>it came complete with TCP/IP, gfx (an no PAKs,
>just a single license key). The next version
>costs $$$, which still is a fair price for an otherwise
>dead OS, considering that they do at least some development
>on it.
>
>> You still think they
>> should give it away ?.
>
>I never said they should give it away,
>just charge the actual processing cost,
Honey, that is giving it away. Try to listen to people
who do know how software is developed and distributed.
>which should be in sync with hobbyist reality,
>i.e. some $$ or low $$$.
The software isn't hobbyist!!!!!
>
>> It's not even clear if they have ever made much
>> money from the "ip" they bought from Dec - breakeven if they were lucky
>> over the years would be my guess.
>
>Well, the stuff that you refer to is so stone old
>that one can assume that development costs have already been
>recuperated ages ago.
It was never recuperated by selling software. DEC made their
money by selling hardware with some bits thrown in the box.
> And if they paid DEC an arm and a leg
>for a dead horse - their fault. But the fact they still
>exist indicates that it can't have killed them.
>
>> I write enbedded software (amongst other things) to earn a crust and
>> spend thousands of hours per year doing it to pay the bills. We are all
>> gratefull for the dedicated souls who do the same for the open source
>> movement, but it's an insult to think that just because it's a gift,
>> it's valueless, or that any of it is done without significant time
>> effort and dedication.
>
>Who said so ? Certainly not me.
>I just pointed out that it's not people's
>(and not my) mindset everything should be free,
>but something which has hobbyist value should
>also have hobbyist prices.
We are translating your hobbyists prices as free because you
have said that you should only have to pay for duplication
and shipping costs and not anything else.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
You cannot this with software because it isn't a physical thing
you can touch. That is why software is categorized as intellectual
property. A book is not invisible; the book is owned by
the buyer of the book. It can be resold, inherited but it cannot
be copied.
>
>> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
>> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
>> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
>> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
>> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
>> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it.
>
>I never said anything else...
>
>> Knowing how they have been treated in the past and the fact that this
>> attitude has not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out
its
>> errors, I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to
>> end the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of
source
>> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
hobbyist
>> community. A sad comentary.
>
>True... But what is your vision of how to change this?
>What I see is that it is very difficult to change the minds of such a big
group
>of people. Fancy changing the official language of the USA to Russian :-)
Sigh! You do business with Mentec. You don't tell them how to
give away their money makers and insist they do it for free.
Write them a letter, a proper business letter. No emails.
Ask for their price list.
Or isn't anybody getting taught how to do this anymore?
/BAH
ChrisQuayle
>
> Who said so ? Certainly not me.
> I just pointed out that it's not people's
> (and not my) mindset everything should be free,
> but something which has hobbyist value should
> also have hobbyist prices.
Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
ain't going to happen. In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you. Nor are they under
any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
you decide is fair. We called that the "terrible two's" when my kids
were growing up :-).
and yes, I know, some people know the price of everything and the value
of nothing etc...
Chris
Bill Gunshannon
Thierry Dussuet <thi...@dussuet.lugs.ch> writes:
> On 2006-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <slrneo7ied....@mars.family>,
>> Thierry Dussuet <thi...@dussuet.lugs.ch> writes:
>>> On 2006-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>> Being a hobbyist does not give you the right to use someone else's
>>>> property. I have a friend who is a TV show addict. Can he start
>>>> using your VCD to tape shows, without your permission, of course.
>>>
>>> That's ok, it just sits around else :-)
>>>
>>> I think the problem is not that people want to steal Mentec's licenses but
>>> rather that most don't have the capital to pay a "real" license.
>>> Since they are ready to pay a smaller fee, as the VMS Hobbyist program has
>>> shown, I think they _would_ make more profits if they were allowed to just hand
>>> a copy of the distribution media or allow to copy it.
>>
>> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
>> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
>> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
>> $10?
>
> My point was not that people should steal the licenses or copy stuff around but
> that in your example the publisher could sell older editions for less money
> than the newest best one. Students not able to pay $180 could then maybe
> manage to pay $90 and still have a somewhat actual edition of the book, and the
> publisher would have made money as a "bonus".
Profit isn't a "bonus". It's the profit earned by the company. It's the
return tot he investors who wouldn;t have invested if they were not going
to get something back. You do realize that's how business works, right?
Text books are a special case. It costs just as much to publish a text
book as it does a Stephen Kimg book, but it is a pretty safe bet that
they are not going to sell as many of a particular text book as they will
of any given novel. Mentec has continued to maintain and improve the
PDP-11 OSes (somebody had to do the Y2K work) and as a result they have
a right to be paid for their work. You may not like the price, but they
get to set it, not you and certainly not the hobbyist community.
>
>> Why do people insist that the rules for computer software should be
>> different than they are for other forms of IP? The value of an item
>> is not set by what the buyer is willing or able to pay. It is set by
>> the owner of the IP. If you can negotiate a better price, fine, but
>> the owner has no responsibility to do so and if he chooses not to it
>> certainly doesn't give you the right to just take it.
>
> I never said anything else...
>
>> Knowing how they have been treated in the past and the fact that this
>> attitude has not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out its
>> errors, I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides to
>> end the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of source
>> and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the hobbyist
>> community. A sad comentary.
>
> True... But what is your vision of how to change this?
> What I see is that it is very difficult to change the minds of such a big group
> of people. Fancy changing the official language of the USA to Russian :-)
I don't think there is any way to change it and that is why there is
pretty much no hope that there could ever be a hobbyist license. The
only alternatives are to run an OS that is legal, like BSD or write
clones of the others (like Linus did with Linux). But, having tried
to drum up interest in it, I don't see that happening. Sadly, because
there is no licensing scheme in any of the PDP-11 OSes like LMF in VMS
it is just too easy for people to steal it. And, they will continue
to do it. Which is another sad commentary on modern times....
Bill Gunshannon
Michael Kraemer <M.Kr...@gsi.de> writes:
> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>
>>
>> The problem with stuff done just for interest is that the mindset is
>> usually shoe string or no cost at all...
>
> I'd say the mindset rather is "fair trade".
> Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
> a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
Two things here. It is your opinion that it " hasn't been worked on for
ages". That is not necessarily true. Just because Mentec doesn't tell
you everytime they fix something doesn't mean it isn't happening. The
PDP-11 OSes are still viable commercial products, in use all over the world
and being maintained by their owner. And second, why should you get to
decide what's fair? I would like to have Porsche 911. But we have
real low speed limits over here so it won't be as much fun as it is
in Germany. So, I think "fair trade" should be that I only pay $20,000
for it instead of the $60,000 Porsche is asking. Sound fair to you?
After all, I am not going to get the full experience so why should I have
to pay the full price?
> Or did Mentec release new versions of RSX and stuff ?
Numerous times since they acquired it, in particular, fixing all the
Y2K stuff. It is only recently that Mentec stopped developing new
PDP-11 processors.
> Making people pay for no visible work isn't such
> a good business model in this case, IMHO.
Just because it isn't visible to you doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm
sorry your not on the distribution for the internal memoes, but that's
life.
> I guess that hobbyists would probably pay for media and
> shipping costs, but not for the IP holders sitting on
> a rotten corpse.
Even if it truly were "a rotten corpse" it would be their "rotten corpse"
and not yours to decide on. But this just shows how little you even know
about the situation.
> Same goes for Ultrix, VAX/VMS and other DEC abandonware, BTW.
And this even more. Which Ultrix? Ultrix-11 is already freely available
and open to anyone to run on anything they want. VMS is not just a VAX
product. It also runs on Alpha and Itanium. The code base is the same
for all of them so it can hardly be considered "a rotten corpse". In
addition, there is a very active hobbyist program that makes it available
for free and not just old versions. the Itanium was recently addded to
the program.
There is no such thing as "abandonware". that is a term created
specifically to let people rationalize their blatant theft of
someone elses's property.
madcrow
> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
> kind of license.
Umm, how can you buy something not even offered? Mentec does not offer
low-cost licenses for hobbyists. You have to pay the same
multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...
Michael Kraemer
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>
> Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
> ain't going to happen.
Oh no, not another car-OS comparison.
At least a Ferrari has some real value,
is faster than the others and actively
being worked on.
Compared to that, the stuff in question here is
some 1950s 3-wheel 2-stroke-engine junker rotting in some
garage, the little boys from the neighbourhood use it for their joyrides,
but the owner still pretends it is a Ferrari and
tries to sell it at Ferrari prices.
It's just ridiculous.
> In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
> value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
> it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
> hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you.
Funny, but if I understand the story correctly,
they prefer to go under (with no business left at all)
rather than lowering prices and have some business at least.
Must be some strange branch of capitalism, indeed.
> Nor are they under
> any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
> you decide is fair.
I really have no idea what you are complaining about.
On one hand you whine about not having affordable hobbyist licenses,
on the other hand you defend a greedy company.
This just doesn't fit together.
Plus you accuse other people always wanting everything for free,
which isn't true, BTW.
Mike Ross
wrote:
Yea, more. In my experience (and in the experience of many other
people who have tried to talk to them, not just 'hobbyists'), they are
simply unresponsive to ALL enquiries - you might as well send it to
/dev/null
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Bill Gunshannon
Michael Kraemer <M.Kr...@gsi.de> writes:
> ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>
>> Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
>> ain't going to happen.
>
> Oh no, not another car-OS comparison.
> At least a Ferrari has some real value,
So we are back to opinion again. Personally, I wouldn't take a Ferrari
as a gift. Well, I would, but then I would immediately sell it on Ebay
and buy a real car.
> is faster
Kind of useless in a country with 65 MPH speed limits. My Miata can do
140 and gets much better gas mileage.
> than the others and actively
> being worked on.
As are the PDP-11 OSes. Three strikes.
> Compared to that, the stuff in question here is
> some 1950s 3-wheel 2-stroke-engine junker rotting in some
> garage,
Once again, matter of opinion. Some jobs don't call for GUI's and
Windows isn't the universal answer.
> the little boys from the neighbourhood use it for their joyrides,
> but the owner still pretends it is a Ferrari and
> tries to sell it at Ferrari prices.
I have seen people sell 80 year old cars for 100's of thousands of
dollars. To me, it's just a old used car, but the owner sets the
price and the people who want it pay that price. Non one comes in
to Barret-Jackson and says, "That's just an old car. I'll give you
$50 for it."
> It's just ridiculous.
No, ridiculous is thinking the buyer somehow gets to set the price
rather than the seller.
>
>> In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
>> value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
>> it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
>> hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you.
>
> Funny, but if I understand the story correctly,
> they prefer to go under (with no business left at all)
> rather than lowering prices and have some business at least.
> Must be some strange branch of capitalism, indeed.
You keep saying they have no business. This even though people keep
telling you they are doing just fine. You seem to be have totally
missed the fact that it wasn't the American part of Mentec that was
just sold. The part that owns the PDP-11 OSes is doing just fine.
Sorry to disappoint you.
>
>> Nor are they under
>> any obligation under fair play, whatever, just give to you at a price
>> you decide is fair.
>
> I really have no idea what you are complaining about.
> On one hand you whine about not having affordable hobbyist licenses,
> on the other hand you defend a greedy company.
Asking for a return on your investment isn't necessarily greed. All
business do it. Do you think 15 minutes worth of ehat passes for music
today is worth $20? Is 90 minutes worth of "I Love Lucy" worth $20?
(I'll give you a hint, I don't think either is worth a warm bucket of
spit.) But the seller gets to set the price, not the buyer. You have
no idea what the investments needed to bring the product to market were
so calling it greed because you aren;t willing to pay the price is just
plain ridiculous.
> This just doesn't fit together.
> Plus you accuse other people always wanting everything for free,
> which isn't true, BTW.
Most want it for free, which is why so many people have no problem just
taking and running it contrary to the legal requirement for a license.
You may not want it for free, but you want the owner to sell it to you
at your price. Try that in Sears, or Burger King or pretty much any
business in your town (beyond the local flea market, at least). See
how far you get.
Richard
jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
<em3hqt$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>Oh, bullshit. People pay thousands of dollars on their interests.
>What is unusual about the computer biz is that the younger
>generations believe that they should get everything free when
>it comes to system hard/software. This is a side effect
>of micshit's business model. [...]
I was with you up until that last point. It has nothing to do with
Microsoft and in fact this attitude isn't specific to computers and
isn't unique to the current times. A similar sentiment has been
expressed about every new "young generation" to come along since
people have been complaining.
I know its popular, trendy and fashionable to bash Microsoft and blame
them for all that is considered bad in the world, but my bullshit
detector went straight off the scale when you tried to lay this one at
Microsoft's feet.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Richard
ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> spake the secret code
<RTbhh.14637$kM2....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net> thusly:
>So when did you last contribute something to open source ?...
Personally I've contributed odds and ends over the years, particularly
in the late 80s/early 90s when I was doing a lot of unix crap.
Nowadays I contribute stuff for Windows, in particular a .NET
interoperability library for the Win32 MSI API. Lately I've been
hacking on fractint to update the code base to a more event-driven
modern application architecture.
Bill Gunshannon
Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org> writes:
> On 17 Dec 2006 09:34:53 -0800, "madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>>> kind of license.
>>
>>Umm, how can you buy something not even offered? Mentec does not offer
>>low-cost licenses for hobbyists. You have to pay the same
>>multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
>>or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
>>can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...
>
> Yea, more. In my experience (and in the experience of many other
> people who have tried to talk to them, not just 'hobbyists'), they are
> simply unresponsive to ALL enquiries - you might as well send it to
> /dev/null
And just what business do you have the currently uses or is likely to
use a PDP-11 commercially? Where did you buy your commercially viable
PDP-11? Who has the contract for your hardware maintenance? While the
PDP-11 business is still commercially viable it is understandably small.
Do you thnk it unreasonable that Mentec might not already know pretty
much all the potential commercial customers and when they get contacted
via Email from a USENET denizen that they might not realize it's just
another hobbyist wanting a low-ball quote for the 11/23 in their basement.
I would not be surprised to find out that Mentec knew what hardware I
had at the University almost as quickly as I did. Especially knowing
where I got it from.
For those who seem to think Mentec US is dead, if so, why did they just
contract with someone major to handle their web page? Seems to me all
they have really done is decide not to run their own webserver. If that's
a sign of business death, there are an awful lot of dead companies in the
US today!!
Richard
jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
<em3i9l$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. Mentex
>has to continually add bells and whistles and bugs or
>else give their products away free. You have been
>bred, born and raised on Micshit's business model.
Bullshit. Again, this has nothing to do with Microsoft.
What you're describing is more the attitude of the open source
movement and not anything to do with Microsoft.
Richard
bi...@cs.uofs.edu spake the secret code
<4ul6vbF...@mid.individual.net> thusly:
>There is no such thing as "abandonware". that is a term created
>specifically to let people rationalize their blatant theft of
>someone elses's property.
I disagree. There are software products that have been abandoned and
according to the podcast "this week in tech" recently, there was a
court case that sanctioned some aspects of what people want to do with
abandonware.
However, I would agree that the term abandonware is tossed around too
glibly as an excuse to raid the software treasure chest.
Bill Gunshannon
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
>
> Nowadays I contribute stuff for Windows, in particular a .NET
> interoperability library for the Win32 MSI API. Lately I've been
> hacking on fractint to update the code base to a more event-driven
> modern application architecture.
<sarcasm>
Oh, well that explains a lot. Sounds like a lot of worthless junk
to me. So I can see why you don't think people should pay real money
for software.
</sarcasm>
But seriously, Do you percive any value in what you do? Who gets to
put a price tag on your work?
Richard
jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
<em3j96$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>>I avoid billyware wherever I can (and quite successfully so far).
>
>No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
>model which happens to create useless, short-term shit.
Look, either stop repeating this baseless claim, or lay some facts
underneath it that don't amount ot just pejorative descriptions or the
typical ad-hominem attack.
The mere fact that millions and millions of people get work done with
the stuff produced by Microsoft contradicts your claim that it is
"useless".
As for "short-term", try telling that to game developers that must
still make their software run in Windows 95 at the pressure of the
publishers.
Richard
bi...@cs.uofs.edu spake the secret code
<4ulrscF...@mid.individual.net> thusly:
>In article <em4d8o$bdk$2...@news.xmission.com>,
> legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
>>
>> Nowadays I contribute stuff for Windows, in particular a .NET
>> interoperability library for the Win32 MSI API. Lately I've been
>> hacking on fractint to update the code base to a more event-driven
>> modern application architecture.
>
><sarcasm>
>Oh, well that explains a lot. Sounds like a lot of worthless junk
>to me. So I can see why you don't think people should pay real money
>for software.
></sarcasm>
Whoa buddy. Take your head out of your ass and pay attention to whom
you're responding. Where did I say that I don't think people should
pay real money for software? If you're going to get in an argument at
least keep your opponents and their positions straight.
You'd do better for your position to calm down and pay attention.
Bill Gunshannon
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> bi...@cs.uofs.edu spake the secret code
> <4ulrscF...@mid.individual.net> thusly:
>
>>In article <em4d8o$bdk$2...@news.xmission.com>,
>> legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) writes:
>>>
>>> Nowadays I contribute stuff for Windows, in particular a .NET
>>> interoperability library for the Win32 MSI API. Lately I've been
>>> hacking on fractint to update the code base to a more event-driven
>>> modern application architecture.
>>
>><sarcasm>
>>Oh, well that explains a lot. Sounds like a lot of worthless junk
>>to me. So I can see why you don't think people should pay real money
>>for software.
>></sarcasm>
>
> Whoa buddy. Take your head out of your ass and pay attention to whom
> you're responding. Where did I say that I don't think people should
> pay real money for software? If you're going to get in an argument at
> least keep your opponents and their positions straight.
>
> You'd do better for your position to calm down and pay attention.
Well, if I got it wrong, I appologize. I guess I have just gotten too
used to being the only one who seems to think that Mentec should have
control of thier IP.
Thierry Dussuet
>>>> I think the problem is not that people want to steal Mentec's licenses but
>>>> rather that most don't have the capital to pay a "real" license. Since
>>>> they are ready to pay a smaller fee, as the VMS Hobbyist program has
>>>> shown, I think they _would_ make more profits if they were allowed to just
>>>> hand a copy of the distribution media or allow to copy it.
>>>
>>> Most of my students are not willing to pay $180 for their Chem text book.
>>> Some have a real hard time affording it. So, would that make it OK for
>>> them to Xerox someone else's book? How about if they send the publisher
>>> $10?
>>
>> My point was not that people should steal the licenses or copy stuff around
>> but that in your example the publisher could sell older editions for less
>> money than the newest best one. Students not able to pay $180 could then
>> maybe manage to pay $90 and still have a somewhat actual edition of the
>> book, and the publisher would have made money as a "bonus".
>
> You cannot this with software because it isn't a physical thing you can
> touch. That is why software is categorized as intellectual property. A book
> is not invisible; the book is owned by the buyer of the book. It can be
> resold, inherited but it cannot be copied.
I see that now... Thank you for the (patient) explanation.
I was under the impression that such companies made more money from support
contracts than from selling the software, but I must be biased by the actual
OpenVMS situation.
>>> Knowing how they have been treated in the past and the fact that this
>>> attitude has not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out
>>> its errors, I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally decides
>>> to end the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of
>>> source and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for the
>>> hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
>>
>> True... But what is your vision of how to change this?
>> What I see is that it is very difficult to change the minds of such a big
>> group of people. Fancy changing the official language of the USA to Russian
>> :-)
>
> Sigh! You do business with Mentec. You don't tell them how to
> give away their money makers and insist they do it for free.
This was more of a general question. As far as I can see, it would be
near-to-impossible to change the way the "hobbyist community" thinks.
> Write them a letter, a proper business letter. No emails.
> Ask for their price list.
And for my case, jot it down as a christmas present for 2050.
Honestly, it would just be waste of their time.
> Or isn't anybody getting taught how to do this anymore?
I'm not sure how Mentec would react if they were flooded with real letters, so
it is just as well if fewer are taught this cunningful art.
Thierry
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> Irrelevant. They still own it. Define "interest"! Just because
> they won't talk to hobbyists about it doesn't mean they have no
> interest. There are still a lot of people using the PDP-11 OSes
> commercially and, they seem to have no problem getting in touch with
> Mentec or arranging for licenses when needed.
I wonder about that. I had some one come here from overseas to get me
to sort out his RT-11 system because he could not get any usefull info
from Mentec or anyone else.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Giorgio Ungarelli
news:4ulrk1F...@mid.individual.net...
> And just what business do you have the currently uses or is likely to
> use a PDP-11 commercially? Where did you buy your commercially viable
> PDP-11? Who has the contract for your hardware maintenance? While the
> PDP-11 business is still commercially viable it is understandably small.
> Do you thnk it unreasonable that Mentec might not already know pretty
> much all the potential commercial customers and when they get contacted
> via Email from a USENET denizen that they might not realize it's just
> another hobbyist wanting a low-ball quote for the 11/23 in their basement.
> I would not be surprised to find out that Mentec knew what hardware I
> had at the University almost as quickly as I did. Especially knowing
> where I got it from.
Why do you defend Mentec with such vigour? Do you get kickbacks from PDP-11
licenses or are you just a disgruntled and permanently pissed-off dude
working for a university's computer science department?
Relax Bill. Its almost Christmas. Drink some eggnog or something...
jmfb...@aol.com
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
><em3hqt$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>
>>Oh, bullshit. People pay thousands of dollars on their interests.
>>What is unusual about the computer biz is that the younger
>>generations believe that they should get everything free when
>>it comes to system hard/software. This is a side effect
>>of micshit's business model. [...]
>
>I was with you up until that last point. It has nothing to do with
>Microsoft and in fact this attitude isn't specific to computers and
>isn't unique to the current times. A similar sentiment has been
>expressed about every new "young generation" to come along since
>people have been complaining.
>
>I know its popular, trendy and fashionable to bash Microsoft and blame
>them for all that is considered bad in the world, but my bullshit
>detector went straight off the scale when you tried to lay this one at
>Microsoft's feet.
It isn't uniquely their fault. When regular people never have
to buy the pieces of the software they use, they think that
there is no cost involved in manufacturing it. Before the PC
came as a complete package, software was presented as an add-on.
It is the mindset that I'm talking about.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
><em3i9l$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>
>>Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. Mentex
>>has to continually add bells and whistles and bugs or
>>else give their products away free. You have been
>>bred, born and raised on Micshit's business model.
>
>Bullshit. Again, this has nothing to do with Microsoft.
>
>What you're describing is more the attitude of the open source
>movement and not anything to do with Microsoft.
Most people are not even aware of the thingie called open
source. Most people think that hardware and software are
the same thing and come in one package. The thing they
think they are buying is the piece that they can touch with
their fingers, not the software.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Michael Kraemer <M.Kr...@gsi.de> wrote:
>ChrisQuayle schrieb:
>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>
>> Well, as a car enthusiast. I would like Ferrari to give me a car, but it
>> ain't going to happen.
>
>Oh no, not another car-OS comparison.
The OS biz seems to evolve like the auto biz evolved over time.
It can be a valid comparison.
>At least a Ferrari has some real value,
>is faster than the others and actively
>being worked on.
>Compared to that, the stuff in question here is
>some 1950s 3-wheel 2-stroke-engine junker rotting in some
>garage, the little boys from the neighbourhood use it for their joyrides,
>but the owner still pretends it is a Ferrari and
>tries to sell it at Ferrari prices.
>It's just ridiculous.
From the posts in this thread, it seems that the -11 software
also has value.
>
>> In the end, everything for sale has a perceived
>> value set by the vendor and if you want it that badly, you'll pay for
>> it, otherwise do without. It's no use whinging on about how it has a low
>> hobbyist value - they obviously disagree with you.
>
>Funny, but if I understand the story correctly,
>they prefer to go under (with no business left at all)
>rather than lowering prices and have some business at least.
>Must be some strange branch of capitalism, indeed.
So far, the only fact that seems to be true is that Mentec
shut down its offices in the US. Nobody has said anything
about the status of their other places.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>> kind of license.
>
>Umm, how can you buy something not even offered?
>Mentec does not offer
>low-cost licenses for hobbyists.
Ah, so you want it cheap instead of their market price.
That's not how the world works.
> You have to pay the same
>multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
>or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
>can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...
Have you tried to negotiate?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org> wrote:
>On 17 Dec 2006 09:34:53 -0800, "madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Then pay for it. Make it worth Mentec's interests to offer that
>>> kind of license.
>>
>>Umm, how can you buy something not even offered? Mentec does not offer
>>low-cost licenses for hobbyists. You have to pay the same
>>multi-thousand dollar price wheteher you're a nerd with a surplus -11
>>or two in the basement or a multi-national corporation...As far as I
>>can tell, they aren't willing to negotiate on a case-by-case basis...
>
>Yea, more. In my experience (and in the experience of many other
>people who have tried to talk to them, not just 'hobbyists'), they are
>simply unresponsive to ALL enquiries - you might as well send it to
>/dev/null
That tells me that you tried via random email instead of a
business approach.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
I try. The OS biz is not an easy thing to explain to people
who don't have any idea how the work gets done. We were sorting
out how to define who owns what for 25 years. It's not clear
that the computer biz has finished defining it.
>I was under the impression that such companies made more money from support
>contracts than from selling the software, but I must be biased by the actual
>OpenVMS situation.
In my corner of the biz, the money was made on the hardware side.
The software side was always a cost of business. DEC never had
a software profit center; software was always organized in
cost centers. I do not know how people handle this stuff if
their only biz is software development. I had understood that
Mentec was hardware; they manufactured -11 CPUs. That means
they were in the hardware biz.
>
>>>> Knowing how they have been treated in the past and the fact that this
>>>> attitude has not changed no matter how much some people have pointed out
>>>> its errors, I would not be at all surprised if, when Mentec finally
decides
>>>> to end the commercial life of these OSes, they just destroy all copies of
>>>> source and object just because of the contempt they probably h old for
the
>>>> hobbyist community. A sad comentary.
>>>
>>> True... But what is your vision of how to change this?
>>> What I see is that it is very difficult to change the minds of such a big
>>> group of people. Fancy changing the official language of the USA to
Russian
>>> :-)
>>
>> Sigh! You do business with Mentec. You don't tell them how to
>> give away their money makers and insist they do it for free.
>
>This was more of a general question. As far as I can see, it would be
>near-to-impossible to change the way the "hobbyist community" thinks.
So far I haven't seen serious hobbyists in this thread.
>
>> Write them a letter, a proper business letter. No emails.
>> Ask for their price list.
>
>And for my case, jot it down as a christmas present for 2050.
>Honestly, it would just be waste of their time.
Possibly. I can envision a market niche where -11s are used
to train youngsters who are at the kindergarten level of
learning the computer biz...not the computing biz, but the
computer biz. The -11 has a nice instruction set and can
be played with without fear of breakage.
>
>> Or isn't anybody getting taught how to do this anymore?
>
>I'm not sure how Mentec would react if they were flooded with real letters,
so
>it is just as well if fewer are taught this cunningful art.
They may consider looking into a training sector. There
are headaches in that biz, too, but not as many as the
sector represented here as hobbyists.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
><em3j96$8qk...@s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>
>>>I avoid billyware wherever I can (and quite successfully so far).
>>
>>No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
>>model which happens to create useless, short-term shit.
>
>Look, either stop repeating this baseless claim, or lay some facts
>underneath it that don't amount ot just pejorative descriptions or the
>typical ad-hominem attack.
You do not know who I am. I was in the OS biz and do know what
I'm talking about.
>
>The mere fact that millions and millions of people get work done with
>the stuff produced by Microsoft contradicts your claim that it is
>"useless".
I know how they have to do their work. I also have a good idea
how much more they would accomplish if they didn't have to
wrestle with the fucking OS every time they want to get something
done.
Do not lecture to me, son.
>
>As for "short-term", try telling that to game developers that must
>still make their software run in Windows 95 at the pressure of the
>publishers.
Win 95 is brand new in this biz. If you want to talk about
backwards compatibility w.r.t. micshit, then you should be
talking about DOS2.0, not Win 95.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <em4dku$bdk$5...@news.xmission.com>,
> legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>Do not lecture to me, son.
I want to amend this line.
I should have said, grandson, to give you an idea of
how old this auld fart is and give you an estimate of
when I was in the computer manufacturing biz.
/BAH
madcrow
> Ah, so you want it cheap instead of their market price.
> That's not how the world works.
Umm, how can an ordinary individual AFFORD the market prices for this?
Are you suggesting that vintage computing should be a hobby restricted
to the phenomenaly wealthy? Or are you just saying that we should
quietly operate without valid licenses and not want to do things in a
legal way?
> Have you tried to negotiate?
Yes, actually. I not only zipped them an e-mail, I actually CALLED on
the phone and asked about getting an affordable license for running the
stuff on Ersatz-11... They said that they "don't deal with private
individuals" What should I do, physically go to their HQ in New
Hampshire and bang on the door?
Bob Koehler
>
> C'mon Bill, a bit of a dodgy argument in this case. Fact: Hobbyists are
> interested in running old dec os's for amusement or interest, not for
> commercial gain.
I'm only interested in running a Nintendo Wii for asmusement, so
Nintendo should me the games for free after I buy a good used
Wii?
Bob Koehler
> Why should a hobbyist pay an arm and a leg for
> a product that hasn't been worked on for ages ?
Because they want to.
Some folks collect old cars. Some folks collect old computers.
Some folks collect old software to run on those old computers.
And generally all collections are of goods the collector bought.
Bob Koehler
>
> It isn't uniquely their fault. When regular people never have
> to buy the pieces of the software they use, they think that
> there is no cost involved in manufacturing it. Before the PC
> came as a complete package, software was presented as an add-on.
> It is the mindset that I'm talking about.
If regular people aren't aware they are buying software, then what's
the business justification for all those boxes on the sheleves of
Best Buy, CompUSA, and other stores?
ChrisQuayle
If you read the rest of the posts, in context, you'll see that i'm
mainly in agreement with Bill over this issue. I write software for a
living and am a hobbyist secondarily, though the line gets blurred much
of the time. While i'm quite happy to give stuff away, there's nothing
more annoying than people with bad attitude, freeloaders or those who
whine like a two year old when they can't get their own way. The type of
poster that describes the old dec os's as "rotting corpse". If it's that
rotting, why is it still of so much interest ?. If you need an os for
pdp, Ultrix 11 is free and downloadable and actually quite good, though
it may be too much effort for some to install. Even has a tcp/ip stack
as well and you can telnet and ftp into the box. Not bad for a decades
old system. So, in summary, can understand Mentec's position. Small
companies can't afford the admin costs that are involved with endless
anorak calls from people who want something for nothing. They are too
busy surviving.
It would be good to have a hobbyist license, but you are depending on
the *generousity* and *goodwill* of the company concerned. After reading
some of the posts in this thread, i'm not surprised Mentec aren't
interested, neither would I...
Chris
Bill Gunshannon
just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
Relax? I am relaxed. I am done with work for the rest of the year and
I am home playing with my personal PDP-11's. What could be more relaxing?
Well, running RSTS probably! But I can't. And we all know who's fault
that is! (Hint: Not Mentec's!!)
Scott Dorsey
>Why do so many people here think that Mentec should give their IP away
>just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
>writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
>find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
>doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
They shouldn't GIVE it away, they should sell it at a reasonable discount.
And the reason they should do it is that it's just plain good business
practice. They'd be making money from people who otherwise wouldn't be
sending them anything.
A thing is worth what the marketplace says it is worth, and the hobbyist
marketplace says the Mentec licenses are not worth what Mentec is charging
for them. But, if Mentec sold a cut-rate license for hobby use and with
no support included, they'd sell a good number of them. People would buy
them, and they'd be happy. Mentec would sell them, and they'd also be happy.
My assumption is that Mentec isn't doing this only because they worry it
would devalue their full-seat licenses. I think it could be arranged so
that this did not happen.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Bill Gunshannon
jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>
> So far, the only fact that seems to be true is that Mentec
> shut down its offices in the US. Nobody has said anything
> about the status of their other places.
> <snip>
Considering that they have apparently contracted out to someone to handle
their web serving, I don't see where this idea that they have gone away
is coming from. The webserver www.mentec-inc.com is still there. The
only change is the fact that there is a page stating that Mentec's webpage
is moving to a company (Yahoo) who specializes in running people's webpages.
If deciding not to do your run your own webserver but rather to contract
it out is a sign of corporate death then there are an awful lot of dead
companies out there!!
Bill Gunshannon
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>Why do so many people here think that Mentec should give their IP away
>>just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
>>writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
>>find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
>>doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
>
> They shouldn't GIVE it away, they should sell it at a reasonable discount.
> And the reason they should do it is that it's just plain good business
> practice.
How is giving away your product (and selling it at less than market value
is tantamount to giving it away!) "just plain good business practice"?
It's not like doing this will somehow increase their sales in the long
run.
> They'd be making money from people who otherwise wouldn't be
> sending them anything.
Not knowing what the margins are (and I would imagine at this point in
time they are razor thin) you can't possibly know they would "be making
money".
>
> A thing is worth what the marketplace says it is worth,
Worth is in the eye of the beholder. And has nothing to do with what
the price will be. IMHO Windows is worthless. Anything you can do
with Windows I can do with Unix. So, should MS offer to sell it to
me at what I think it is worth?
> and the hobbyist
> marketplace says the Mentec licenses are not worth what Mentec is charging
> for them.
Then stop asking to run it. If you don't think it is worth the price,
don't buy it. I do that with products all the time.
> But, if Mentec sold a cut-rate license for hobby use and with
> no support included, they'd sell a good number of them. People would buy
> them, and they'd be happy. Mentec would sell them, and they'd also be happy.
Big assumption on yur part. I am fairly certain Mentec is quite happy now
not dealing with hobbyists at all. If I were them, you would need to come
up with a much more compelling business argument. Especially based on past
experience.
>
> My assumption is that Mentec isn't doing this only because they worry it
> would devalue their full-seat licenses. I think it could be arranged so
> that this did not happen.
And I think your just plain wrong. The potential commercial market for
the PDP-11 OSes is samll enough that ther eis little if any chance of it
becoming "devalued". Those who need it commerically aren't going to try
to steal it. Those who would, pretty much already have. The only one
likely to gain anything from a hobbyist license are the hobbyists. With
that in mind and their track record to look back on, if you were Mentec,
what would you do!
Giorgio Ungarelli
>
> Relax? I am relaxed. I am done with work for the rest of the year and
> I am home playing with my personal PDP-11's. What could be more relaxing?
> Well, running RSTS probably! But I can't. And we all know who's fault
> that is! (Hint: Not Mentec's!!)
>
If you've been *REALLY* good this year and sent your letter to the North
Pole early enough, maybe Santa will put an RSTS/E license in your
stocking... ;)
Scott Dorsey
>In article <em6g9m$41b$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>Why do so many people here think that Mentec should give their IP away
>>>just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
>>>writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
>>>find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
>>>doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
>>
>> They shouldn't GIVE it away, they should sell it at a reasonable discount.
>> And the reason they should do it is that it's just plain good business
>> practice.
>
>How is giving away your product (and selling it at less than market value
>is tantamount to giving it away!) "just plain good business practice"?
>It's not like doing this will somehow increase their sales in the long
>run.
It's NOT less than market value. It IS market value. And it _will_ increase
their sales in the long run. More than that, it will increase the demand
for (seperately paid) support.
>> They'd be making money from people who otherwise wouldn't be
>> sending them anything.
>
>Not knowing what the margins are (and I would imagine at this point in
>time they are razor thin) you can't possibly know they would "be making
>money".
Depends. Their cost to issue is a license is very low, and consists only
of the paperwork to keep track of who has a license and who does not.
The software is not being updated, so the cost to keep the stuff current
is zero.
Their main cost is the need to provide support, and if you sell a cheap
license without support, you are increasing the number of people who
are more apt to purchase support services in the future.
>> A thing is worth what the marketplace says it is worth,
>
>Worth is in the eye of the beholder. And has nothing to do with what
>the price will be. IMHO Windows is worthless. Anything you can do
>with Windows I can do with Unix. So, should MS offer to sell it to
>me at what I think it is worth?
No, because many other people think it is worth more. You and I make
up only a tiny fraction of the marketplace for Windows and we are not
representative of that market. However, we're a substantial part of
the market for RT-11.
>> and the hobbyist
>> marketplace says the Mentec licenses are not worth what Mentec is charging
>> for them.
>
>Then stop asking to run it. If you don't think it is worth the price,
>don't buy it. I do that with products all the time.
Well, that is in fact what I have done. And that's a shame.
>And I think your just plain wrong. The potential commercial market for
>the PDP-11 OSes is samll enough that ther eis little if any chance of it
>becoming "devalued". Those who need it commerically aren't going to try
>to steal it. Those who would, pretty much already have. The only one
>likely to gain anything from a hobbyist license are the hobbyists. With
>that in mind and their track record to look back on, if you were Mentec,
>what would you do!
I'd take the money from anyone I could. And I might follow the Microsoft
model of making the system inexpensive and the support dear.
Bill Gunshannon
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>In article <em6g9m$41b$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>>Why do so many people here think that Mentec should give their IP away
>>>>just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
>>>>writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
>>>>find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
>>>>doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
>>>
>>> They shouldn't GIVE it away, they should sell it at a reasonable discount.
>>> And the reason they should do it is that it's just plain good business
>>> practice.
>>
>>How is giving away your product (and selling it at less than market value
>>is tantamount to giving it away!) "just plain good business practice"?
>>It's not like doing this will somehow increase their sales in the long
>>run.
>
> It's NOT less than market value. It IS market value. And it _will_ increase
> their sales in the long run. More than that, it will increase the demand
> for (seperately paid) support.
Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
has set the market value. If you don't think it is worth what they set
the price at, don't buy it. But I can not for the life of me understand
how someone who has no idea what it cost them to buy it originally, no
idea what it is costing them everyday to maintain or what their general
oerating expenses (which also have to be covered by sales revenue) are
can sit there and say, "They need to sell it to me for a lower price."
Have you tried going into any store and telling them their products are
overpriced and they need to sell them to you cheaper than what they list
on the tag? Have you ever bought any jewelry? Markup is in the area of
1000% What do you think would happen if you told the jewler the diamond
ring you want isn't worth the $2000 he is asking so he should sell it to
you for $50? Why does everyone think computer software should be any
different than any other retail product?
>
>>> They'd be making money from people who otherwise wouldn't be
>>> sending them anything.
>>
>>Not knowing what the margins are (and I would imagine at this point in
>>time they are razor thin) you can't possibly know they would "be making
>>money".
>
> Depends. Their cost to issue is a license is very low, and consists only
> of the paperwork to keep track of who has a license and who does not.
How can you possibly know what their cost is? Or what their corporate
requirements for issuing and tracking licenses are? Or any of a dozen
other things that all have to be paid for in the long run.
>
> The software is not being updated, so the cost to keep the stuff current
> is zero.
You keep saying this, I happen to know it isn't true. They have actively
maintained and updated the software ever since they bought it. Just because
they don't issue daily bug fixes like MS doesn't mean they aren't maintaining
it.
And, as I have said before, that is irrelevant. It's their propoerty to
do with as they please and no one has a right to critisize the way they
do business. If you don't like it, don't do business with them but don't
expect them to change their way of doing business just to please you.
>
> Their main cost is the need to provide support, and if you sell a cheap
> license without support, you are increasing the number of people who
> are more apt to purchase support services in the future.
Oh, right. The hobbyists who want the software for free in the first
place are going to pony up the money for support contracts. Do you
even realize how absurd that sounds?
>
>>> A thing is worth what the marketplace says it is worth,
>>
>>Worth is in the eye of the beholder. And has nothing to do with what
>>the price will be. IMHO Windows is worthless. Anything you can do
>>with Windows I can do with Unix. So, should MS offer to sell it to
>>me at what I think it is worth?
>
> No, because many other people think it is worth more. You and I make
> up only a tiny fraction of the marketplace for Windows and we are not
> representative of that market. However, we're a substantial part of
> the market for RT-11.
No, we are not. The market is made up of those who pay to run the
software. Freeloaders don't count. When you become a commercial
user then you will be part of the marketplace. Because you are not
interested in paying what Mentec offers their product for they are
not interested in doing business with you. Balls in your court!
>
>>> and the hobbyist
>>> marketplace says the Mentec licenses are not worth what Mentec is charging
>>> for them.
>>
>>Then stop asking to run it. If you don't think it is worth the price,
>>don't buy it. I do that with products all the time.
>
> Well, that is in fact what I have done. And that's a shame.
Then what;s the problem? Oh, you want Mentec to change their way of
doing business to meet your desires. Be sure to let me know how many
other real OS vendors do that for you.
>
>>And I think your just plain wrong. The potential commercial market for
>>the PDP-11 OSes is samll enough that ther eis little if any chance of it
>>becoming "devalued". Those who need it commerically aren't going to try
>>to steal it. Those who would, pretty much already have. The only one
>>likely to gain anything from a hobbyist license are the hobbyists. With
>>that in mind and their track record to look back on, if you were Mentec,
>>what would you do!
>
> I'd take the money from anyone I could. And I might follow the Microsoft
> model of making the system inexpensive and the support dear.
Economies of Scale. Microsoft can get away with that because they hove
forced a lock on the industry. (I will leave the arguments about their
methods of doing this to someone else, let it suffice to say I avoid
their products as much as possible.) I am sure if Mentec could be sure
of selling 100,000,000 copies the price would be substantially lower.
But they can't and the price is set at what they have to sell it for to
stay in business. If you think you can do the job better, then start
your own business, write your own PDP-11 OS and drive them out of the
market with lower prices. :-)
Scott Dorsey
>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>has set the market value.
But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
>If you don't think it is worth what they set
>the price at, don't buy it.
I don't. And most other people don't either. And consequently Mentec
appears to be having financial issues.
> But I can not for the life of me understand
>how someone who has no idea what it cost them to buy it originally, no
>idea what it is costing them everyday to maintain or what their general
>oerating expenses (which also have to be covered by sales revenue) are
>can sit there and say, "They need to sell it to me for a lower price."
>Have you tried going into any store and telling them their products are
>overpriced and they need to sell them to you cheaper than what they list
>on the tag? Have you ever bought any jewelry? Markup is in the area of
>1000% What do you think would happen if you told the jewler the diamond
>ring you want isn't worth the $2000 he is asking so he should sell it to
>you for $50? Why does everyone think computer software should be any
>different than any other retail product?
Because computer software is all up-front engineering cost, and not back
end manufacturing cost. This makes it precisely the opposite of a diamond.
>How can you possibly know what their cost is? Or what their corporate
>requirements for issuing and tracking licenses are? Or any of a dozen
>other things that all have to be paid for in the long run.
Because I have worked for software companies before.
>> Their main cost is the need to provide support, and if you sell a cheap
>> license without support, you are increasing the number of people who
>> are more apt to purchase support services in the future.
>
>Oh, right. The hobbyists who want the software for free in the first
>place are going to pony up the money for support contracts. Do you
>even realize how absurd that sounds?
No, I am talking about per-call support, not contract support. You cannot
sell contract support to hobbyists, and even if you could, it will tend to
not be cost effective because they tend to be an excessive drain on resources
compared with corporate customers.
>No, we are not. The market is made up of those who pay to run the
>software. Freeloaders don't count. When you become a commercial
>user then you will be part of the marketplace. Because you are not
>interested in paying what Mentec offers their product for they are
>not interested in doing business with you. Balls in your court!
The market is made up of those who pay to run the software, yes. By
providing a lower cost license, the size of the market is increased.
Bill Gunshannon
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>>has set the market value.
>
> But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
You keep saying that, got any evidence to support that claim?
(Hint: I happen to know otherwise!)
>
>>If you don't think it is worth what they set
>>the price at, don't buy it.
>
> I don't. And most other people don't either. And consequently Mentec
> appears to be having financial issues.
Once again, it was not the American Mentec that was sold recently.
There is no reason at this point to assume anything has changed over
here byond Mentec-inc moving from running their own webserver to
contracting their webpages out.
>
>> But I can not for the life of me understand
>>how someone who has no idea what it cost them to buy it originally, no
>>idea what it is costing them everyday to maintain or what their general
>>oerating expenses (which also have to be covered by sales revenue) are
>>can sit there and say, "They need to sell it to me for a lower price."
>>Have you tried going into any store and telling them their products are
>>overpriced and they need to sell them to you cheaper than what they list
>>on the tag? Have you ever bought any jewelry? Markup is in the area of
>>1000% What do you think would happen if you told the jewler the diamond
>>ring you want isn't worth the $2000 he is asking so he should sell it to
>>you for $50? Why does everyone think computer software should be any
>>different than any other retail product?
>
> Because computer software is all up-front engineering cost, and not back
> end manufacturing cost. This makes it precisely the opposite of a diamond.
No it's not. They have employees, physical plant and operating costs
just like any other business. The diamond was merely an example of
cost vs. price. Jewelry is priced at unbelievably more than it's actual
cost or the expenses needed to market it. And yet, people gladly pay this
without batting an eye. No one goes into the jewlers and says, "You need
to sell me that set of earrings cheaper because my wife is only going to
wear them once or twice a year." The jewler (owner of the goods) sets
the price and you either pay it or not. Except in your typical flea market
type environment the price is not negotiable.
>
>>How can you possibly know what their cost is? Or what their corporate
>>requirements for issuing and tracking licenses are? Or any of a dozen
>>other things that all have to be paid for in the long run.
>
> Because I have worked for software companies before.
Sorry, hard to believe.
>
>>> Their main cost is the need to provide support, and if you sell a cheap
>>> license without support, you are increasing the number of people who
>>> are more apt to purchase support services in the future.
>>
>>Oh, right. The hobbyists who want the software for free in the first
>>place are going to pony up the money for support contracts. Do you
>>even realize how absurd that sounds?
>
> No, I am talking about per-call support, not contract support. You cannot
> sell contract support to hobbyists, and even if you could, it will tend to
> not be cost effective because they tend to be an excessive drain on resources
> compared with corporate customers.
And their not going to use per-call support either. They are freeloaders
and nothing more. Some companies allow this. The majority do not.
What computer systems beyond VMS have a hobbyist program equivalent to
the VMS program? PRIMOS? Now there's a dead OS. Well, not really as
there are still a pretty good number of commercial installations for it
as well, but there is no and will be no hobbyist program for it. Any
of the IBM Mainframe OSes? MVS? VM? CICS? How about Unisys's Exec-8?
Or here's one for you. HP, who is the current sponser of the VMS Hobbyist
Program is also the owner of Ultrix-32. Go ask them about a Hobbyist
license for it. (Another Hint: I tried!!)
>
>>No, we are not. The market is made up of those who pay to run the
>>software. Freeloaders don't count. When you become a commercial
>>user then you will be part of the marketplace. Because you are not
>>interested in paying what Mentec offers their product for they are
>>not interested in doing business with you. Balls in your court!
>
> The market is made up of those who pay to run the software, yes. By
> providing a lower cost license, the size of the market is increased.
Sigh. Hobbyists are freeloaders. They bring nothing to the market.
Want to hazard a guess at how much I have spent on my hobbyist systems?
I have maybe a dozen PDP-11's, 8-9 VAX, 2 Alphas. I used to have a Prime
2250 and an Apollo. I have 7 3B1's and used to have 2 3B2's. Go ahead.
Guess. With very few exceptions computer hobbyists wouldn't do it if it
cost money.
Robert Krten
> In article <em6qpg$o13$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> > Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
> >>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
> >>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
> >>has set the market value.
> >
> > But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
[snip]
> > Because computer software is all up-front engineering cost, and not back
> > end manufacturing cost. This makes it precisely the opposite of a diamond.
> No it's not. They have employees, physical plant and operating costs
> just like any other business.
>
Exactly. I think it might be useful if we put some numbers on this.
Let's say that their average loaded labour rate is US$100/h per employee,
just to keep things really simple (it might be half that, it might be 80%
of that, it might be 120% of that. Whatever.).
How much are you (the greater you, i.e. "the hobbyists") actually hoping to
pay for a license? $10? $50? $100? $200?
Now convert that into number of employee hours.
At $10, it means that they can do no more than 6 minutes worth of work (1/10 of
an hour) in order to procure you a license. At $100, it means an hour.
I'm willing to bet, "having worked for software companies before", that it
is on the order of AT LEAST an hour's worth of work, all told (think about
getting the printer loaded, the paper, the legal documentation, the license
generation, the printing, the address verification, taking the order, processing
the payment, mailing, accounting, filing, etc, etc, etc)...
That is just to *cover costs*.
Obvioulsy, they'll want to make a profit (they are in business to... wait
for it ... "make money").
So my "bare minimum" price that I think they could conceivably sell a license
for is on the order of USD$200 / copy.
All bullshit aside, how many hobbyists (one? ten? a hundred?) are willing
to put out this kind of money for a license?
There will be one-off costs associated with getting a hobbyist program up and
running. Order entry will need to know about the special price. Legal will
most likely need to get involved. Sales will have to be told. Hell, new
forms might need to be designed. Etc etc etc.
So, let's say all these whiz kids really have their shit together, and only
spend 40 hours (one week) on it. That's $4k gone already. How many licenses
will they sell to recoup that? If the margin is only $50 / license ($200
sell price minus $150 cost), that means just to break even they need to sell
4000/50 = 80 licenses.
I've been there, done that. I self published a bunch of books, and had to do
exactly these kinds of numbers in order to figure out if it was going to be
worthwhile or not. For me, it was ok, because I sold on the order of thousands
of copies total. Not onesies/twosies/tensies.
All I ask is that you consider the numbers.
Enough of my soapbox rant; back to lurking mode :-)
Cheers,
-RK
--
Robert Krten, Antique computer collector looking for PDP-series
minicomputers; check out their "good home" at www.parse.com/~museum
Email address is valid; greylisting spam filter in effect.
Richard
jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
<em5urp$8qk...@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>>>No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
>>>model which happens to create useless, short-term shit.
>>
>>Look, either stop repeating this baseless claim, or lay some facts
>>underneath it that don't amount ot just pejorative descriptions or the
>>typical ad-hominem attack.
>
>You do not know who I am. I was in the OS biz and do know what
>I'm talking about.
Ah. The "appeal to authority". You're an authority (so you claim),
so I should just take your word for it. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
And yes, I don't know who you are. Because I don't have a feeble mind
that follows the opinions of others simply because they said it. I
have a healthy mind that demands supporting evidence for claims. So
either put it up there for us all to see, or shut up about it.
>>The mere fact that millions and millions of people get work done with
>>the stuff produced by Microsoft contradicts your claim that it is
>>"useless".
>
>I know how they have to do their work. I also have a good idea
>how much more they would accomplish if they didn't have to
>wrestle with the fucking OS every time they want to get something
>done.
LOL. I love how the Bill haters characterize computing in the current
era. Funny how it doesn't correlate with my or most people's
experience. The fact is that most people get their work done without
fighting the computer every step of the way.
>Do not lecture to me, son.
I'm not lecturing you, I'm asking that you provide proof for your
assertions. If you decide not to provide proof, then I'll just write
you off as another Bill hater that has no more logic to their position
other than "that damned Bill! How come he's worth billions but I'm
not!".
>>As for "short-term", try telling that to game developers that must
>>still make their software run in Windows 95 at the pressure of the
>>publishers.
>
>Win 95 is brand new in this biz. [...]
Not if you talk to the average computer user instead of the crufty old
curmudgeons who pine for the days of PDP-11s.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Richard
jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
<em613t$8qk...@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>I should have said, grandson, to give you an idea of
>how old this auld fart is and give you an estimate of
>when I was in the computer manufacturing biz.
Age is not a substitute for facts. Put up or shut up.
madcrow
> How much are you (the greater you, i.e. "the hobbyists") actually hoping to
> pay for a license? $10? $50? $100? $200?
<snip>
> So my "bare minimum" price that I think they could conceivably sell a license
> for is on the order of USD$200 / copy.
>
> All bullshit aside, how many hobbyists (one? ten? a hundred?) are willing
> to put out this kind of money for a license?
HP manages to make money while giving away VMS licenses and even full
blown media kits of HP-UX... Then again HP also makes money selling
workstations, desktops, laptops, calculators, printers, over priced
inkjet ink and toner, etc... Maybe HP can afford to be generous more
than a company like Mentec. I dunno.
Mike Ross
>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>has set the market value.
It's my keyboard which is in danger here... Bill, Mentec set the
*price*, not the market value. They set the price as seems best to
them. If they set it too high, no-one will buy it. If they set it too
low, they won't show a profit. You're confusing 'market value' with
'price'.
Look... I just bought a high-end collectors brass model train on ebay.
The guy has had it up there, with a 'buy it now' of $1500 for six
months - that was his idea of 'market value' Unfortunately he got it
wrong. He turned down a 'best offer' of $1200 from me three months
ago. So did I get the 'market value' wrong too? As it turns out, yes I
did - he finally gave up and put it on open auction - I bought it
yesterday, with a high bid of $860.
Mentec don't determine the *market value* of *anything* - they simply
chose a price which some proportion of the potential market is willing
to bear.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Don North
> In alt.sys.pdp11 Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <em6qpg$o13$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>>>> "Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>>>> has set the market value.
>>> But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
>
> Let's say that their average loaded labour rate is US$100/h per employee,
> just to keep things really simple (it might be half that, it might be 80%
> of that, it might be 120% of that. Whatever.).
>
> How much are you (the greater you, i.e. "the hobbyists") actually hoping to
> pay for a license? $10? $50? $100? $200?
The OpenVMS license (while ostensibly 'free') costs me US$90 a year
because I have to be a member of ENCOMPASS (the HP equivalent of DECUS).
So US$100 a year is not out of the question; that's what the 'free'
OpenVMS license costs.
BTW maintaining these licenses costs HP/COMPAQ/DEC *nothing* because the
VMS hobbyist program is maintained by a third party (Montagar Software).
If the cost of generating paperwork for licenses was not acceptable to
Mentec I'm sure they could find a vintage computer organization that
would do the paperwork for them.
The big sticking point I see is that RT11/RSTS/RSX don't have a limited
time license facility that VMS does with it's PAKs (ie, you must renew
your license every year for $90 or it expires and you can't run your s/w
anymore). So the PDP-11 OSes would need to have a larger up-front
payment because there would be no guarantee of a future renewal income
stream. So US$250 for a one time hobbyist license fee seems reasonable
to me. My guess is this is about 10% of Mentec's 'price' but I am just
speculating here. Of course this fee would be devoid of any support.
I don't think this will ever happen. My speculation is that in five to
ten years from now Mentec will have exhausted their customer base and
the PDP-11 OSes will become defacto public domain because they are just
not worth anything to a corporate entity.
jmfb...@aol.com
I thought we were talking about operating systems.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
bi...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>In article <em5tia$8ss...@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>>
>> So far, the only fact that seems to be true is that Mentec
>> shut down its offices in the US. Nobody has said anything
>> about the status of their other places.
>> <snip>
>
>Considering that they have apparently contracted out to someone to handle
>their web serving, I don't see where this idea that they have gone away
>is coming from. The webserver www.mentec-inc.com is still there. The
>only change is the fact that there is a page stating that Mentec's webpage
>is moving to a company (Yahoo) who specializes in running people's webpages.
>If deciding not to do your run your own webserver but rather to contract
>it out is a sign of corporate death then there are an awful lot of dead
>companies out there!!
Ah! I see. Heh. Who would have thought that people could make
money by drawing pretty TTY pictures for businesses. :-)
/BAH
Bill Gunshannon
There is no such thing as "defacto public domain". If an item is not
explicitly put in the public domain it remains copyrighted until the
copyright expires.
jmfb...@aol.com
"madcrow" <madcrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Ah, so you want it cheap instead of their market price.
>> That's not how the world works.
>
>Umm, how can an ordinary individual AFFORD the market prices for this?
We weren't talking about ordinary individuals. We were talking
about hobbyists who want to run Mentec's OS software.
>Are you suggesting that vintage computing should be a hobby restricted
>to the phenomenaly wealthy?
Since when is the -11 OS biz vintage? It's still getting sold
and maintained. Are you suggesting that the PDP-11 OS biz
should not continue just because you want free software?
If you want free software, pick up an old copy of something.
There should be quite a few edu places that had their kiddies
write their own. Another way to get access to OS software that
is still being developed is to go work for the manufacturer.
That's what I did.
>Or are you just saying that we should
>quietly operate without valid licenses and not want to do things in a
>legal way?
Why do you only give the choices where the result is that you
get it for free at the expense of Mentec? The only way that
PDP-11 OSes will stay current and cared for is if some company
can make a profit by doing the work.
>
>> Have you tried to negotiate?
>Yes, actually. I not only zipped them an e-mail, I actually CALLED on
>the phone and asked about getting an affordable license for running the
>stuff on Ersatz-11... They said that they "don't deal with private
>individuals" What should I do, physically go to their HQ in New
>Hampshire and bang on the door?
From your attitude in this post, I wouldn't want to deal with you
either because you're going to want to have all the privileges
that come with buying the OS for free, too. It does seem that
your idea of affordable is Mentec's idea of operating at a loss.
Why don't you write your own OS that will run on your hardware?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
><em613t$8qk...@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>
>>I should have said, grandson, to give you an idea of
>>how old this auld fart is and give you an estimate of
>>when I was in the computer manufacturing biz.
>
>Age is not a substitute for facts. Put up or shut up.
I am experienced in the OS manufacturing biz. Now
what kinds of facts do you want?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>jmfb...@aol.com spake the secret code
><em5urp$8qk...@s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com> thusly:
>
>>>>No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
>>>>model which happens to create useless, short-term shit.
>>>
>>>Look, either stop repeating this baseless claim, or lay some facts
>>>underneath it that don't amount ot just pejorative descriptions or the
>>>typical ad-hominem attack.
>>
>>You do not know who I am. I was in the OS biz and do know what
>>I'm talking about.
>
>Ah. The "appeal to authority". You're an authority (so you claim),
>so I should just take your word for it. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
>
>And yes, I don't know who you are.
My apologies. Most DEC types do know who I am. I'm posting from
comp.sys.dec.
> Because I don't have a feeble mind
>that follows the opinions of others simply because they said it. I
>have a healthy mind that demands supporting evidence for claims. So
>either put it up there for us all to see, or shut up about it.
Son, go read some listings that have both /JMF's and /BAH's and
/TW's initials in them.
>
>>>The mere fact that millions and millions of people get work done with
>>>the stuff produced by Microsoft contradicts your claim that it is
>>>"useless".
>>
>>I know how they have to do their work. I also have a good idea
>>how much more they would accomplish if they didn't have to
>>wrestle with the fucking OS every time they want to get something
>>done.
>
>LOL. I love how the Bill haters characterize computing in the current
>era. Funny how it doesn't correlate with my or most people's
>experience.
Then you have absolutely no idea how much you wouldn't have to do
if you had an OS that didn't make your decisions for you no matter
what you told it not to do.
> The fact is that most people get their work done without
>fighting the computer every step of the way.
>
>>Do not lecture to me, son.
>
>I'm not lecturing you, I'm asking that you provide proof for your
>assertions. If you decide not to provide proof, then I'll just write
>you off as another Bill hater that has no more logic to their position
>other than "that damned Bill! How come he's worth billions but I'm
>not!".
<snort> I think I'll leave this one alone.
>
>>>As for "short-term", try telling that to game developers that must
>>>still make their software run in Windows 95 at the pressure of the
>>>publishers.
>>
>>Win 95 is brand new in this biz. [...]
>
>Not if you talk to the average computer user instead of the crufty old
>curmudgeons who pine for the days of PDP-11s.
Who is pining for -11s? They're still out there working and being
supported.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Yes, and it's really too bad that these types are queering any
future considerations if their -11 code is going to be retired.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>Why do so many people here think that Mentec should give their IP away
>>just because they are hobbyists? As someone who used to earn his living
>>writting maintaining OS Software I now what costs are involved and I
>>find it rather disconcerting that people here think that somehow Mentec
>>doesn't deserve to be compensated for their work.
>
>They shouldn't GIVE it away, they should sell it at a reasonable discount.
>And the reason they should do it is that it's just plain good business
>practice. They'd be making money from people who otherwise wouldn't be
>sending them anything.
But they aren't making any money at your so-called reasonable discount.
Do a fucking cost analysis of OS development and maintenance. Then
come back and tell us what a "reasonable" price would be. Guesstimate:
it's probably 2 or 3 times their price; I bet they already do have
a discount for the software when it comes with their hardware.
>
>A thing is worth what the marketplace says it is worth, and the hobbyist
>marketplace says the Mentec licenses are not worth what Mentec is charging
>for them. But, if Mentec sold a cut-rate license for hobby use and with
>no support included, they'd sell a good number of them.
This is complete bullshit. They would almost immediately find
that they were getting SPRs and complaints about software they
don't support. Even this screening costs tons of money.
> People would buy
>them, and they'd be happy.
No, they would not be happy.
> Mentec would sell them, and they'd also be happy.
>
>My assumption is that Mentec isn't doing this only because they worry it
>would devalue their full-seat licenses. I think it could be arranged so
>that this did not happen.
Do a cost analysis and write up a proposal. Put your labor where
you mewling mouth is.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Your ideas of "no costs" are just flatout wrong.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>>has set the market value.
>
>But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
>
>>If you don't think it is worth what they set
>>the price at, don't buy it.
>
>I don't. And most other people don't either. And consequently Mentec
>appears to be having financial issues.
>
>> But I can not for the life of me understand
>>how someone who has no idea what it cost them to buy it originally, no
>>idea what it is costing them everyday to maintain or what their general
>>oerating expenses (which also have to be covered by sales revenue) are
>>can sit there and say, "They need to sell it to me for a lower price."
>>Have you tried going into any store and telling them their products are
>>overpriced and they need to sell them to you cheaper than what they list
>>on the tag? Have you ever bought any jewelry? Markup is in the area of
>>1000% What do you think would happen if you told the jewler the diamond
>>ring you want isn't worth the $2000 he is asking so he should sell it to
>>you for $50? Why does everyone think computer software should be any
>>different than any other retail product?
>
>Because computer software is all up-front engineering cost, and not back
>end manufacturing cost.
This is complete utter bullshit. You need 500 ton dosage of reality.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
bi...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>In article <em6qpg$o13$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>How can you possibly know what their cost is? Or what their corporate
>>>requirements for issuing and tracking licenses are? Or any of a dozen
>>>other things that all have to be paid for in the long run.
>>
>> Because I have worked for software companies before.
>
>Sorry, hard to believe.
Bill? That's why he has his wrong ideas about Mentec's
manufacturing costs. He's never had to tie software development
and maintenance with the hardware development and manufacturing biz.
These incorrect ideas come from a MS mentality.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
info...@parse.com (Robert Krten) wrote:
>In alt.sys.pdp11 Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <em6qpg$o13$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> > Bill Gunshannon <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> >>Sorry, but you made me spit coffee all over my keyboard with that one!!
>> >>"Market value" is what an item sells for. Mentec (who owns the product)
>> >>has set the market value.
>> >
>> > But the item... the item isn't selling. That's the issue.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Because computer software is all up-front engineering cost, and not back
>> > end manufacturing cost. This makes it precisely the opposite of a
diamond.
>
>> No it's not. They have employees, physical plant and operating costs
>> just like any other business.
>>
>
>Exactly. I think it might be useful if we put some numbers on this.
>Let's say that their average loaded labour rate is US$100/h per employee,
IIRC, ours was $500/sq.ft. And that was in 1980. You have to include
the costs of the building those people work in.
>just to keep things really simple (it might be half that, it might be 80%
>of that, it might be 120% of that. Whatever.).
>
>How much are you (the greater you, i.e. "the hobbyists") actually hoping to
>pay for a license? $10? $50? $100? $200?
>
>Now convert that into number of employee hours.
>
>At $10, it means that they can do no more than 6 minutes worth of work (1/10
of
>an hour) in order to procure you a license. At $100, it means an hour.
>
>I'm willing to bet, "having worked for software companies before", that it
>is on the order of AT LEAST an hour's worth of work, all told (think about
>getting the printer loaded, the paper, the legal documentation, the license
>generation, the printing, the address verification, taking the order,
processing
>the payment, mailing, accounting, filing, etc, etc, etc)...
>
>That is just to *cover costs*.
That is more than one hour.
>
>Obvioulsy, they'll want to make a profit (they are in business to... wait
>for it ... "make money").
>
>So my "bare minimum" price that I think they could conceivably sell a license
>for is on the order of USD$200 / copy.
I'd have put it at a $1K. and that would have been cost. This gives
no income to be put towards future development, maintenance, or
copying-for-spoiled-hobbyists business.
>
>All bullshit aside, how many hobbyists (one? ten? a hundred?) are willing
>to put out this kind of money for a license?
>
>There will be one-off costs associated with getting a hobbyist program up and
>running. Order entry will need to know about the special price. Legal will
>most likely need to get involved. Sales will have to be told. Hell, new
>forms might need to be designed. Etc etc etc.
More importantly, a screening process has to be put on top of the
current infrastructure for when a hobbyist has a complaint.
That can get in the millions of dollars and is a RPITA.
>
>So, let's say all these whiz kids really have their shit together, and only
>spend 40 hours (one week) on it. That's $4k gone already. How many licenses
>will they sell to recoup that? If the margin is only $50 / license ($200
>sell price minus $150 cost), that means just to break even they need to sell
>4000/50 = 80 licenses.
>
>I've been there, done that. I self published a bunch of books, and had to do
>exactly these kinds of numbers in order to figure out if it was going to be
>worthwhile or not. For me, it was ok, because I sold on the order of
thousands
>of copies total. Not onesies/twosies/tensies.
>
>All I ask is that you consider the numbers.
>
>Enough of my soapbox rant; back to lurking mode :-)
This was a fine back-of-the-envelop cost analysis. I added
a dash of my experience to it. Thanks.
/BAH
P.S. I just thought of another money eater...documentation.
Now it's into a $5 million overhead cost.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Just don't get us started at how HP has ruined a perfectly
good OS biz.
FYI, HP is an ink company. If you think HP is so damned good
at pleasing their core customers, why aren't they bringing
back the calculators everybody wants to buy?
/BAH
madcrow
> The OpenVMS license (while ostensibly 'free') costs me US$90 a year
> because I have to be a member of ENCOMPASS (the HP equivalent of DECUS).
> So US$100 a year is not out of the question; that's what the 'free'
> OpenVMS license costs.
Really? I joined, over the web, as a free "associate member" I got my
licenses, I get full access to ENCOMPASS's online services, and that's
all I really want. The only things I would get extra if I PAID would be
some paper mail that I would probably never have time to read and
discounts to real-world events which I would probably never have time
to attend... I get the full spectrum of services of things a Hobbyist
could ever want/need for exactly $0/year.
> BTW maintaining these licenses costs HP/COMPAQ/DEC *nothing* because the
> VMS hobbyist program is maintained by a third party (Montagar Software).
It doesn't even cost Montagar very much, as most of the stuff is done
automatically.
<snip>
> The big sticking point I see is that RT11/RSTS/RSX don't have a limited
> time license facility that VMS does with it's PAKs (ie, you must renew
> your license every year for $90 or it expires and you can't run your s/w
> anymore). So the PDP-11 OSes would need to have a larger up-front
> payment because there would be no guarantee of a future renewal income
> stream. So US$250 for a one time hobbyist license fee seems reasonable
> to me. My guess is this is about 10% of Mentec's 'price' but I am just
> speculating here. Of course this fee would be devoid of any support.
Again, since the fee for the VMS Hobby program is $0 rather than $90, I
don't see the point. $250 does seem like a reasonable number, though,
especially if you got documentation and media. I suspect most people
with the space for a real -11 can afford $250... They probably pay that
much in a month in electricity...
> I don't think this will ever happen. My speculation is that in five to
> ten years from now Mentec will have exhausted their customer base and
> the PDP-11 OSes will become defacto public domain because they are just
> not worth anything to a corporate entity.
It depends on who owns the copyright by that point. Some companies have
no real problems with the concept of "abandonware" and look the other
way when their no-longer-sold stuff is made available for free on the
Web. Other companies go ballistic at the thought and bring the full
force of the law down on anyone they can catch.