Jobites..are you listening?????
Steve Sarich III
the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week. I've been hearing from all
of you how the shitty treatment that Talus received is somehow related to
my poor disposition...and that of Jason and other former NS developers.
This is your opportunity....show us your stuff!
The only thing I've seen from a Jobite, so far, is a chuck fleming post on
how nice WebRex is. Thanks, chuck!
Why is it that Jobites always ask for the "facts" and then never respond
to them?
You can *bet* we'll discuss this further....
Steve
Terry Wilcox
Steve Sarich III <st...@talus.com> wrote:
>I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites following
>the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week. I've been hearing from all
>of you how the shitty treatment that Talus received is somehow related to
>my poor disposition...and that of Jason and other former NS developers.
>This is your opportunity....show us your stuff!
The difference Steve is easy to sum up:
1. Ted Shelton actually posted the whole story, without innuendo or name
calling. He admitted that he would prefer to just get on with life and sell
some copies of WebRex. You, on the other hand, never post the whole story.
You post innuendo, insults, and bile, but never the facts. You aren't
allowed to post facts. You always want revenge.
2. We don't like you. You openly insult people that disagree with you.
You're rude and inflammatory. You've announced that Talus has quit the
NS development community, but then post what great NS apps you've
just developed. You could save NeXT if they'd just give you a chance.
Ted doesn't seem to have your enormous, unjustified ego.
So yes, I'm offended by NeXT's treatment of ITS. I would like NeXT to
patch things up with ITS and I can understand why Ted would want
to move to Delphi.
And no, I still think NeXT should treat you like dirt. Why don't
you go away? You keep saying you will, but you never do.
It's not that we think NeXT is never in the wrong, it's just that
we don't like you. I find it impossible to feel any sympathy for
you. You remind me of a spoiled rich kid who doesn't get his own way.
This isn't about NeXT or NEXTSTEP or the computer industry. I'm just
offended by your behaviour and I wish you would keep your promises and go
away.
Terry Wilcox
--
Terry Wilcox
Arcane Systems Ltd.
te...@arcane.com
ch...@its.com
this subject.
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> I imagine I'm supposed to actually say something here, so I'll say
> that if the article is true then I'm disappointed that NeXT would
> be causing trouble (particularly that they'd be threatening legal
> trouble) in this way.
It's easily verifiable that WebRex was available before NeXT's WebObjects
were announced. If you were at the WebWorld expo in Chicago, which
happened a week or so before ObjectWorld, you could have seen and used
WebRex.
[ ... ]
> (no matter who is right or who is wrong, my own interest is more along
> the lines of programming and not politics or business matters).
As a personal suggestion, remember that people who say "I don't play
politics" really mean "I play politics poorly".
How can you be a (good) programmer without knowing how to make a rational
business decision about whether a software product or service is likely to
make or lose money for yourself and your company?
> That probably explains why I've been a NeXTSTEP aficionado for such
> a long time, I'm only in it for the programming side (and not for
> other minor issues, like trying to make a living off of it...).
Well, the NEXTSTEP market can be a tough one to earn a living on. Much of
the blame for that resides with NeXT. I really do wish that things were
different, because NEXTSTEP was and is one of the best operating system
environments available, and the alternatives aren't nearly as pleasant.
-Chuck
--
Charles Swiger -- ch...@its.com | Information Technology Solutions, Inc.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
CrashCatcher Development, Systems and Networking Administrator
Mark Crispin
> I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites following
> the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week. I've been hearing from all
> of you how the shitty treatment that Talus received is somehow related to
> my poor disposition...and that of Jason and other former NS developers.
Why is it a "bombshell"? It's exactly the sort of behavior most of the
industry has come to expect from Jobs.
I used to work for someone like that. I quit that job after 3 months.
The company's product was great, and could have been a big seller (we're
talking about a $100M+ market *begging* them to sell the product), but
between corporate paranoia (as personified by this individual) and lack of
professionalism the product's failure was guaranteed.
And fail it did.
-- Mark --
DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
David Evans
>> I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites
>> following the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week.
>
>
Not pleasant to read, but I wasn't surprised.....
[...]
>my own interest is more along the lines of programming and not
>politics or business matters). That probably explains why I've
>been a NeXTSTEP aficionado for such a long time, I'm only in it
>for the programming side (and not for other minor issues, like
>trying to make a living off of it...).
>
I merily use my cube from home, writing cheesy apps when I need them. Apart
from laughing at Steve S's posts (and Steve J's temper tantrums) that's the
only vested interest in NS that I have.
--
David Evans (NeXTMail OK) dfe...@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
Computer/Synth Junkie http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual
Steven S. Rosenblum
Garance A Drosehn <g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>st...@talus.com (Steve Sarich III) wrote:
>> I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites
>> following the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week.
I'm not sure if I qualify as a full-fledged jobite, but...
After reading Ted Shelton's (and SSIII's) post(s), I'm sort of glad
that NeXT has not overtaken MS: As bad as MS may be, it seems that
NeXT Inc. might be worse (not talking about technology, just corporate
policy, and no, I'm not trying to start a debate here).
For the past four years, I've seen flocks of developers leaving NS for
greener pastures. Sure, when it was just Appsoft, I figured that they
may simply have been a bad company. But when RightBrain and Pages and
numerous others whose names I can't think of now left, I saw that
there was something about the NS marketplace which made it incapable
of supporting ISV's. However, I was willing to believe that it was
simply NeXT's MCCA focus which made the marketplace as difficult as it
obviously is.
Now that I've heard some of the stories from people like Jayson Adams,
SSIII, and Ted Shelton, though, I've come to believe that NeXT has
killed its ISV's. Sure, the NS shrinkwrap market would be tough so
long as NeXT keeps its MCCA focus (which NeXT is completely justified
in doing), but NeXT has augmented these difficulties by its shoddy
treatment of developers. My impression is that rather than simply
ignoring ISV's (or having some small team to assist them) as their
MCCA focus may justify, they have actively put roadblocks into NS
third party development.
Despite this, however, NS still solves the problems I need it to solve
in a way that the MacOS or W95 cannot (at least out of the box). I
don't feel comfortable relying on an OS with as tempermental a
management structure as NeXT seems to have, yet I really do not want
to shift OS's in the near term. So, I'll keep my eyes open at W95 and
Copland, see what software can replace my NS software on these
systems, and wait.
So Steve (Sarich AND Jobs), I hope that this post answers your
question about how at least one Jobite is fairing. And, since it
seems that NeXT reads this group, I'd suggest that a lot of us write
in this public forum how NeXT's treatment of ISV's affects us: maybe
we'll either see "their side of the story," or they may see ours.
thanks for the bandwidth,
rosie
Scott Hess
st...@talus.com (Steve Sarich III) writes:
>I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites
>been hearing from all of you how the shitty treatment that Talus
>received is somehow related to my poor disposition...and that of
>us your stuff!
>
>post on how nice WebRex is. Thanks, chuck!
>
>Why is it that Jobites always ask for the "facts" and then never
>respond to them?
My thought is that these so-called "Jobites" don't have all that much
invested in the NeXTSTEP market relative to vendors. If an end-user
or a company invests $100k in NeXTSTEP, and NeXT starts dumping on
them, well, they're out $100k but can probably still make decent use
of what they got. NeXT can't really come and take what they have
away, after all. They'll just stop moving forward with NeXTSTEP.
A vendor or developer, meanwhile, has probably invested a couple
$100k, either in real money or "sweat equity", and if NeXT decides to
stomp on them - well, that's the end of things. Though most
developers I've dealt with are mainly in the NeXTSTEP market for
reasons other than money, they still bet their financial future on
NeXTSTEP. They aren't making bets on the _now_, they're making bets
on the future, and leveraged bets at that.
In other words, vendors and developers have a much greater stake in
things, and thus get a bit more upset when stuff like this happens. I
know that Ted's problems have really gotten me thinking. Either that,
or perhaps I've had clients tell me "You know Scott, you're nothing
like what the NeXT rep told us you were like" one too many times ...
Later,
--
scott hess <sh...@winternet.com> (WWW to "http://www.winternet.com/~shess/")
Home: 12550 Portland Avenue South, #121 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 895-1208
Office: 101 W. Burnsville Pkwy, Suite 108F, Burnsville, MN 55337 890-1332
<?If you haven't the time to design, where will you find the time to debug?>
Garance A Drosehn
> following the bombshell from Ted Shelton this last week.
It was a bombshell to you? I thought it'd be old-hat by now.
> I've been hearing from all of you how the shitty treatment that
> Talus received is somehow related to my poor disposition...and
> that of Jason and other former NS developers. This is your
> opportunity... show us your stuff!
*All* of us? Me too? Seems to me I made a pretty reasonable
post about my view of Jason's situation. I don't remember all
of what I've said about your treatment, although as a happy
owner of the original Talus driver for the NCR PCI SCSI chip,
I'm sure I've occasionally said some positive things.
> The only thing I've seen from a Jobite, so far, is a chuck
> fleming post on how nice WebRex is. Thanks, chuck!
I haven't had the time to check out WebRex (given the start
of September, I've been too tied up with various things that
need to be done as part of the new semester here). I imagine
it's pretty nice.
> You can *bet* we'll discuss this further....
Go ahead and discuss it. I'll probably catch up sometime
in October.
I imagine I'm supposed to actually say something here, so I'll say
that if the article is true then I'm disappointed that NeXT would
be causing trouble (particularly that they'd be threatening legal
trouble) in this way. The phrase "cutting off one's nose to spite
one's face" comes to mind. I'll also say that I'm sure I don't
have the full story, and that in some sense it's not the kind of
story I relish getting into (no matter who is right or who is wrong,
my own interest is more along the lines of programming and not
politics or business matters). That probably explains why I've
been a NeXTSTEP aficionado for such a long time, I'm only in it
for the programming side (and not for other minor issues, like
trying to make a living off of it...).
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
Hadar Pedhazur
: I've been waiting patiently for the response from the Jobites following
: my poor disposition...and that of Jason and other former NS developers.
: The only thing I've seen from a Jobite, so far, is a chuck fleming post on
: how nice WebRex is. Thanks, chuck!
: Why is it that Jobites always ask for the "facts" and then never respond
: to them?
: You can *bet* we'll discuss this further....
: Steve
Impossible to pass up on this one, right? :-)
Anyway, Ted's post was interesting. I personally thanked him in a
private email for posting. I know, not exactly a Jobite kinda thing to
do :-). Let me tell you why. While (as has been pointed out in another
response to you) there are usually a *minumum* of two sides to every
story, Ted presented his very clearly, and very unemotionally. "Just
the facts, ma'am" style. What I thanked him for, was giving
"customers" like myself an opportunity to discuss these practices with
NeXT in a way that allows us to probe the issue more deeply.
I do not feel that with your past posts I could "ring up my local NeXT
office" and demand to know what they thought they were doing to you.
I could not ask them if they understood how it affected *me* and my
business, etc. This is not to say that I doubt the veracity of your
story (as I've said before, I understand enough about life and *this*
marketplace enough to not dismiss these claims out of hand).
I feel that with Ted's post, I can (call NeXT that is :-).
Finally, Ted puts the market in an interesting (and possibly
untenable) situation. While I do not have a short term need for
WebRex, I am tempted to buy it *anyway* to both show support for him,
and to start (earlier than planned) using a technology that eventually
will play a role in our organization. However, he also claims that his
focus is moving away from NS (completely understandable, *even* if
NeXT has a *better* comeback than one could imagine!!!). This puts me
(as a potential customer) in the unenviable position of possibly
having a cool product on my hands, which maybe has a stupid niggling
bug that never gets fixed, etc. My point here, is that Ted evoked
*sympathy* (I would guess from a wide audience, including your loathed
Jobites).
We all could learn a lesson from his style.
Oh, and BTW, you won your bet :-)
--
Hadar Pedhazur
Global Equity Derivatives
Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS)
Paul Lynch
> For the past four years, I've seen flocks of developers leaving NS for
> greener pastures. Sure, when it was just Appsoft, I figured that they
> may simply have been a bad company. But when RightBrain and Pages and
> numerous others whose names I can't think of now left, I saw that
> there was something about the NS marketplace which made it incapable
> of supporting ISV's. However, I was willing to believe that it was
> simply NeXT's MCCA focus which made the marketplace as difficult as it
> obviously is.
>
> Now that I've heard some of the stories from people like Jayson Adams,
> SSIII, and Ted Shelton, though, I've come to believe that NeXT has
> killed its ISV's. Sure, the NS shrinkwrap market would be tough so
> long as NeXT keeps its MCCA focus (which NeXT is completely justified
> in doing), but NeXT has augmented these difficulties by its shoddy
> treatment of developers. My impression is that rather than simply
> ignoring ISV's (or having some small team to assist them) as their
> MCCA focus may justify, they have actively put roadblocks into NS
> third party development.
I believe that what you say is correct. I don't think that MCCA is a
problem; I actually think it is a godsend for a developer, as it is a rich
market that repays good support very well.
However, I do not believe that NeXT deliberately attempt to do down
developers. Rather that their company culture motivates and focuses
employees to behave with a very short term horizon, and hires people with
that outlook. It seems dumb to me, as I have worked in markets where
encouraging third parties is used to grow the market very successfuly;
look at Oracle for an example.
Paul
--
Paul Lynch (NeXTmail)
http://www.plsys.co.uk/~paul
(under construction)
Garance A Drosehn
> > say that if the article is true then I'm disappointed that NeXT
> > would be causing trouble (particularly that they'd be threatening
> > legal trouble) in this way.
> It's easily verifiable that WebRex was available before NeXT's
> WebObjects were announced. If you were at the WebWorld expo in
> Chicago, which happened a week or so before ObjectWorld, you
> could have seen and used WebRex.
I was not at WebWorld. Thus, I have no first-hand knowledge that
it's true. Of the people I know who went to WebWorld, none of them
have mentioned WebRex at all. Even if they had seen and used
WebRex, that would not verify that NeXT was threatening some kind
of legal trouble.
Please realize, however, that I am not claiming the article is a
lie. I'm just say that if it is true then I'd obviously *have* to
agree that this is pretty abysmal behavor for NeXT. I believe I
used the term "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". Where
I come from, that phrase is not meant as a complement.
I'm also trying to keep a precise idea of what I, personally, know
as facts, and what I've heard from other sources. I do that for
most topics, why shouldn't I do that here?
> > (no matter who is right or who is wrong, my own interest is
> > more along the lines of programming and not politics or business
> > matters).
> As a personal suggestion, remember that people who say "I don't
> play politics" really mean "I play politics poorly".
Whether I play politics or not, and whether I do a good job at it
or not, I can still say that playing politics is not an interesting
part of my existance. I may do a great job at washing dishes, but
that doesn't mean I run over to the neighbors because I want to
wash everyone's dishes.
And for the record, I don't do my dishes all that great, and I
doubt I'm all that good at playing politics. So, what's your point?
All I said was that I avoid issues like these. I don't race to
them like I'll race to a thread on blue title bars. Given that
I have no financial stake in either thread, I'll gravitate towards
the topics that interests me the most.
> How can you be a (good) programmer without knowing how to make
> a rational business decision about whether a software product or
> service is likely to make or lose money for yourself and your
> company?
That is not the same as playing politics.
A rational decision about a product goes like "I estimate that 3000
people will buy this program, and if I charge them $30 each then
I'll get enough money to make it worth my time". You may be wrong
with the demand, or the amount of time it'll take to write the
program, but it's still a rational (even when flawed) process.
Playing politics is "I'll write up this program, only to be
blindsided by some other company with a legal department that
has some time on their hands, and thus all rational analysis of
this product will turn out to be pointless".
I realize the second paragraph is a very real consideration
that one must take into account when running your own business.
The astute will note that I do not run my own business.
> > That probably explains why I've been a NeXTSTEP aficionado for
> > such a long time, I'm only in it for the programming side (and
> > not for other minor issues, like trying to make a living off
> > of it...).
> Well, the NEXTSTEP market can be a tough one to earn a living
> on. Much of the blame for that resides with NeXT. I really do
> wish that things were different, because NEXTSTEP was and is one
> of the best operating system environments available, and the
> alternatives aren't nearly as pleasant.
Indeed.
David Briggman
: Yet people repeatedly blame NeXT for their own bad decisions. Did a
: single ISV do their own marketing research before or after getting into
: the NEXTSTEP market? You can guess which companies did and which didn't.
: Is it NeXT's fault that I won't buy your product? I bought a NeXT
: machine. I have money. Why didn't I buy your product?
Terry, in order for any company to undertake any sort of market
research, one must evaluate the position of the market at a given instant,
and this has been impossible to do with NeXT...they are a moving target
and they keep moving toward a much smaller piece of the pie. Aside from
that, it's difficult to do market research when you are contemplating
the development of a product on a platform for which you have no idea how
many seats have been sold...
Well NeXT, how many seats have been sold (and in what markets)? Developers
are going to want to know this before they buy in.
I honestly believe that if NeXT were to take on Microsoft for a month,
in terms of marketing and price of the User OS, that NeXT would have
a largely-increased customer base...aside from most end-users never
having heard of NeXTSTEP/Openstep, those that have probably have never seen
it...and those that have seen it probably would not want to spend $795
for the user version of an OS (multiply that number in corporate #s and
you get the idea)...BTW, the former NeXT Connection (PC/Mac Connection)
has discontinued NeXTSTEP product sales. Put NeXTSTEP on TV, in PC and Mac
Week and sell it at $99 to $129 and you would see the number of seats go
WAY up...NeXT used to bleed money, let them spend some money on some
marketing and maybe eat some licensing fees for a month.
: Talus - what did they sell? I still don't know.
At the time of Expo in 1993, Talus had the MOST shipping products on
the platform...VERY HIGH-END imaging products using Iris (?) printers
and were obviously designed at the top-end of NeXT's market focus (at
that time)...TALUS was also THE NeXTSTEP reseller for the USSR and I
think, Eastern Europe (help me out Steve), however, TALUS has no products
in the nice little Shipping Products Guide distributed at Expo and I
believe that TALUS (as most resellers at the time should have done) was
suing NeXT for violating their own Reseller Agreement by not giving their
resellers 30-days notice to the end of their hardware line. Unless you
know/knew about Talus' Products, you might think Steve Sarich is a little
off his rocker, but if you know Steve and his company's situation, then
you know that he's not whacked...Ted's story only adds credence to Steve
Sarich's.
If you didn't know what Talus sold, then why take pot-shots at Steve when
you didn't know why he might be pissed.
: How many of these companies had a business plan? How many had a marketing
: department? How many had a clue?
This would be the BEST QUESTION TO ASK NeXT.
--
Dave Briggman
******************************************************************************
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain: Manuscript note, c.1882.
Uwe Hoffmann
NeXT senior management was scared of competition.
They wanted to stop a competing product
(and this with ugly methods like legal moves and license changing).
I wonder why they have so little self-confidence.
They probably would have gained the larger part of this web objects market
anyway because they're the larger guy and also sell the foundation
on which this is build (EOF and PDO).
---
uwe....................................hoffmann@fzi.de (nextmail ok)
--
uwe....................................hoffmann@fzi.de (nextmail ok)
joe_freeman
> In article <SHESS.95S...@subzero.winternet.com> >
> > developers I've dealt with are mainly in the NeXTSTEP market for
> > reasons other than money, they still bet their financial future on
> > NeXTSTEP.
>
> developers "feel" that NeXT (or Steve, or whoever) is screwing them is
> through their wallet!
There is some validity to this statement. The hard part about being
pioneers is that you are trying to create the path while driving over it.
It is a lot of work and the decisions at forks in the road are painful. I
find it interesting to count the number of people who never owned a
business before being involved with NeXT. Some have done well some have
not. Some of the success/failure is due to NeXT and some is not. For
almost everyone it is a learning experience. I think it is a hard day when
you realize that there is a hard reality underlying the "cause" that you
thought would make you "well off".
--
Joe Freeman J...@FreemanSoft.com (NeXT,MIME,ASCII Mail)
FreemanSoft Inc. A NEXTSTEP software and consulting company in MD.
Opinions expressed do represent those of FreemanSoft Inc and not NeXT Inc.
Yes, I do work for NeXT and they are not half as suprised about it as I am.
joe_freeman
I hope the attributions stay correct.
In article <1995Sep12....@seer.demon.co.uk> Paul Lynch
<Paul_...@plsys.com> writes:
> In article <434fd7$e...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> sro...@umich.edu
> (Steven S. Rosenblum) writes:
> > For the past four years, I've seen flocks of developers leaving NS for
> > greener pastures. Sure, when it was just Appsoft, I figured that they
> > may simply have been a bad company. But when RightBrain and Pages and
> > numerous others whose names I can't think of now left, I saw that
> > there was something about the NS marketplace which made it incapable
> > of supporting ISV's. However, I was willing to believe that it was
> > simply NeXT's MCCA focus which made the marketplace as difficult as it
> > obviously is.
I think this is still the case. The fundamental focus of the NeXT
marketplace has changed from "the next Mac" to MCCA. This demands a
different platform, type of ISV and software infastructure. NeXT could
have stayed with the the "next Mac" focus but the shrink wrap developers
would never have seen the MS/win sized market they hoped for.
> > Now that I've heard some of the stories from people like Jayson Adams,
> > SSIII, and Ted Shelton, though, I've come to believe that NeXT has
> > killed its ISV's. Sure, the NS shrinkwrap market would be tough so
> > long as NeXT keeps its MCCA focus (which NeXT is completely justified
> > in doing), but NeXT has augmented these difficulties by its shoddy
> > treatment of developers. My impression is that rather than simply
> > ignoring ISV's (or having some small team to assist them) as their
> > MCCA focus may justify, they have actively put roadblocks into NS
> > third party development.
It is not clear what NeXT has done to make the developer's life harder.
Steve Sarich's comments have some validity in the driver kit space where
NeXT could use some more third party drivers. But, I think that Ted's
comments are a bit out of bounds and do not reflect the reality as I
understand it.
No one finds it interesting that Ted wrote his "NeXT shouldn't be messing
with the web" comments before he announced Web Rex publicly. I found it
somewhat interesting that he had purchased Web Pages and WebRex while
saying that the web was no place for someone to make money? Somewhat
disengenuous to say the least.
joe_freeman
> >The difference Steve is easy to sum up:
> >
> >1. Ted Shelton actually posted the whole story, without innuendo or name
> >calling. He admitted that he would prefer to just get on with life and
> > sell some copies of WebRex. You, on the other hand, never post the
> >whole story. You post innuendo, insults, and bile, but never the facts.
>
> Hear hear!
I agree also.
>
> This isn't a good situation any way you look at it. I am sad to hear of
> NeXT's attitude towards Ted's organization on account of developing
> WebRex. I am sad to hear Ted leave the NeXT marketplace, but really what
> can he do?
Ted has all kinds of business issues that weigh on his mind at this time.
I don't think he could accurately claim that this situation is the main
cause for any restructuring. I'm not saying that everything at NeXT his
handled perfectly, just that the part of the situation that I was involved
in was nowhere near as raw as described.
joe_freeman
> RightBrain - PasteUp 1.0 was shit. What a rip-off. 2.0 was worse.
> AppSoft - pretty boxes don't make a product. You need something to sell.
> Pages - too late. Too weird. Who was it aimed at?
> Jaysom Adams' companies - too expensive. $200 for a news reader?
> If I ran NeXT, I would have sued for copyright infringement.
> NewsGrazer Pro steals the NewsGrazer name.
> Talus - what did they sell? I still don't know.
A lot of these people were creative minds that wanted to be their own
bosses. Some just wanted to do cool software. This is not always a good
combination and sometimes it is. Some of them probably got a bad deal but
it happens. Put all of that on top of a changing market and you have
frustration.
> Ted Shelton and ITS get my sympathy. Companies like SofDesign and
> Lighthouse get my money.
I agree.
> Above all, make this group useful. Name calling and flaming are fun (see
> above), but they're useless. I really don't expect this post to
> accomplish anything except earn me some hate mail. Did anybody actually
> get this far?
I thought it was a decent post. But then we know how warped my postings
are.
indy@gryphon
> In article <DEuDw...@icgned.nl> j...@icgned.nl (Jan Roskott) writes:
>> In article <SHESS.95S...@subzero.winternet.com> >
>> > Though most
>> > developers I've dealt with are mainly in the NeXTSTEP market for
>> > reasons other than money, they still bet their financial future on
>> > NeXTSTEP.
>>
>> The primary focus is not making money, is the theory. But the only way
>> developers "feel" that NeXT (or Steve, or whoever) is screwing them is
>> through their wallet!
>
> There is some validity to this statement. The hard part about being
> pioneers is that you are trying to create the path while driving over it.
> It is a lot of work and the decisions at forks in the road are painful. I
> find it interesting to count the number of people who never owned a
> business before being involved with NeXT. Some have done well some have
> not.
Interesting observation. I certainly never considered going into business (let alone for myself) before my close encounter with NEXTSTEP. The stimulant effect of vision and daring should not be underestimated.
Two years into my adventure, I wish I was doing better financially, but it's not clear to me that I'd have had more success pursuing my dreams via other platforms. I'm certain I would not have had the stimulating pleasure in computing that NEXTSTEP has given me. Put bluntly, computers to me were tedious, and therefore pointless, until NEXTSTEP. A tool's worthless if you won't use it.
Some of the success/failure is due to NeXT and some is not. For
> almost everyone it is a learning experience. I think it is a hard day when
> you realize that there is a hard reality underlying the "cause" that you
> thought would make you "well off".
It's sobering watching the Web become ever an more competitive arena. Six months ago we were pioneers in site design and content; now all kinds of outfits offer Website design services. We haven't sat still, of course, and NEXTSTEP still gives us a competitive edge, but it takes a lot of work just keeping up. "Animated banners? Everybody's doing that. What we wanna know is, can you do direct brain-scan surveys from our home page?"
---
| Steve Weintz * Partner, New Media,Ltd. * st...@dave-world.net |
| 217.344.5303 * fax 217.344.8981 * http://www.nm-ltd.com/NMLtd/ |
| P.O.Box 742 | "Bobcat, do you like hamsters or gerbils?" |
| Urbana, IL USA 61801 |"Well, there's more dark meat on a hamster." |
Gregory H. Anderson
> Jobs has his Fuck-off Money. He's independent. Money-wise and mentally.
> He doesn't give a damn. And we're envious.
No, we're disgusted. Having FUM doesn't give you the right to treat your
customers and other supporters like garbage. Yes, people with FUM can
choose not to give a damn. But if they choose to go into business with
some (or all) of it -- and ask others to spend some of their resources
in common pursuit -- they have to follow the basic rules of customer and
supplier satisfaction. Unless their goal is to slowly piddle it away.
> If you feel Jobs is not the person to bet your business on, go home.
That seems to be the general trend in the market. How does that make
you feel as a customer? ... Yeah, I thought so.
--
Gregory H. Anderson | "Honey, there're few programming
Gaffer/Best Boy/Key Grip | problems that can't be solved
Anderson Financial Systems | with duct tape." -- 'Father' Duke
gr...@afs.com (NeXTmail OK) | (paraphrased), Doonesbury, 2/17/95
Hadar Pedhazur
[much munching ...]
: It is not clear what NeXT has done to make the developer's life harder.
: NeXT could use some more third party drivers. But, I think that Ted's
: comments are a bit out of bounds and do not reflect the reality as I
: understand it.
: No one finds it interesting that Ted wrote his "NeXT shouldn't be messing
: with the web" comments before he announced Web Rex publicly. I found it
: somewhat interesting that he had purchased Web Pages and WebRex while
: saying that the web was no place for someone to make money? Somewhat
: disengenuous to say the least.
: --
: Joe Freeman J...@FreemanSoft.com (NeXT,MIME,ASCII Mail)
: FreemanSoft Inc. A NEXTSTEP software and consulting company in MD.
Your points are a little of the mark (IMHO). I am responding here only
even though you made these remarks in a few different posts :-).
Once of the central claims that Ted made was that he had an
"interested" customer. The sense that I got from his post, was that
NeXT "actively" attempted to get the customer to *not* buy the product
from Ted. I'm sorry, but MCCA or otherwise, I don't see how this is
anything other than anti-competitive.
I 100% agree with Paul Lynch when he said that you are side-stepping
the issue.
ch...@its.com
than see a half-dozen responses, I'll collect some messages. These are my
opinions, not ITS'....nor do I speak for ITS. ]
Joe Freeman wrote:
> The only way NeXT could be accused of anti-competitive tendencies is if
> they tried to drive ISVs out by building competing products.
NeXT could be described as "anticompetitive" because of the following:
1) Threats of legal action by NeXT against ITS as a corporate entity, some
of the individuals involved in building WebRex, and potential customers of
WebRex.
2) NeXT changing the software license for PDO and EOF so that you have to
purchase a $25,000 server license from NeXT if you ever want to use a
WebRex server on the Internet.
(Specificly, NeXT claims that you must purchase such a license if you ever
connect to a machine running EOF/PDO from a machine not running EOF/PDO.
Call them up and ask!)
3) I personally have been asked by NeXT to phrase product announcements and
other materials in a way that avoids pointing out flaws or problems in
NeXT's products so as to avoid competing with NeXT's products.
4) The fact that NeXT expects people such as Ted Shelton to send product
announcements and other public statements to NeXT first so that NeXT can
look them over. One of the reasons certain people at NeXT are so pissed
off at Ted is because he decided to say what he thought without checking
with them first.
(This was something I learned fairly recently from a good friend who has
worked at NeXT. The damnedest thing about it is he saw nothing wrong with
this attitude, either.)
5) The fact that all references to ITS or ITS products have disappeared
from NeXT's web pages because ITS has been blacklisted by NeXT. NeXT
apparently is not willing to tolerate third-party products which compete
with theirs.
NeXT's current behavior leads me to conclude that NeXT is making a
deliberate effort to either drive ITS out of the NeXT marketplace or out of
business entirely.
> [ ... ] I still find it interesting that Ted was posting about how
> little business sense it made to do work on the web before WebRex or
> WebObjects were announced,
I didn't fully understand what Ted was trying to say with that comment,
either. Perhaps Ted believed that it didn't make business sense for NeXT
to pursue a product like WebObjects when ITS already had WebRex ready as a
salable product?
>> I wonder when and if NeXT will offer such a solution. If they do,
>> previous behavior suggests that NeXT will then claim to be the first
>> to come up with such technology.
>
> Why even put this piece in?
Because it is my opinion, drawn from my observations of how NeXT conducts
business when you are not NeXT's "friend".
> Is it some kind of ITS mandate?
No. Unlike NeXT, no one at ITS has ever told me that I should or should
not write about anything I wished to a public forum such as these
newsgroups (*). I do not claim to speak for ITS, as I've already said.
(*) Excluding confidential information covered by NDA's, of course.
> Ted has all kinds of business issues that weigh on his mind at this time.
> I don't think he could accurately claim that this situation is the main
> cause for any restructuring.
I strongly disagree. The way this was handled cost ITS a great deal of
money in sales which were lost directly due to NeXT changing the licensing
of PDO and EOF.
I can point to specific examples, although I will not do so publicly.
> I'm not saying that everything at NeXT his handled perfectly,
> just that the part of the situation that I was involved in was nowhere
> near as raw as described.
This is certainly a matter of your perspective. I don't believe anyone
outside of NeXT would agree if the complete details were made public.
> [ ...WebPages... ] Is ITS going to be able to keep up with all
> of the other big web page editors?
While I'm not a big fan of Pages or the product ITS acquired from them when
they went out of business, the design model behind Pages that is used in
WebPages works quite well to constrain a page designer into creating valid
HTML.
I understand that other people working on HTML editors or interested in
purchasing that category of products have been pretty impressed with what
you get from WebPages.
> Who got steamrolled. Ted is pissed that NeXT announced a product.
I really don't think Ted cares one way or another about WebObjects being
announced. Why should he? ITS has a product that's available right now,
not sometime next year.
> Now, the NeXT pricing is probably a lot higher than Ted's which
> leaves him a lot of room, [ ... ]
You are correct that NeXT's pricing is a lot higher that ITS' but you are
in error with respect to this leaving Ted a lot of room.
One of the biggest problems is that NeXT has changed their licensing for
PDO/EOF so that ITS can not sell WebRex for general usage without having to
pay *NeXT* more than an order of magnitude more money than ITS wishes to
charge for WebRex itself!
Good lord, isn't $5900 for NEXTSTEP/Developer, plus $900 for EOF enough of
a cut for NeXT? What possesses NeXT to believe that a server license for
WebObjects (or WebRex) is *worth* $25,000?
> [ ... ]
If anyone wonders why Ted believes Delphi is better than NEXTSTEP ever was,
try comparing the actual costs of the two on both the per-developer and the
per-user basis.
This fiasco has forced me to see the validity in Ted's perspective.
Personally, I don't particularly wish to leave the NeXT marketplace, but
it's gotten to the point where I am afraid of what NeXT is going to do in
the future.
I'm sure that people who are familar with my Usenet posting style have
noticed a very strong attitude change towards NeXT. I give NeXT a great
deal of credit for designing one of the best interfaces to a computer
system that I have ever had the pleasure to work with. However, I simply
cannot recommend NeXT's technology as a prudent business solution any more.
-Chuck
PS: To the best of my knowledge, every thing I have claimed here is
completely factual to the extent to which I understand it. I have very
little doubt that this post will render me "persona non grata" at NeXT, and
I wish to apologize to the friends I have who work at NeXT. Please don't
take this personally.
Mark Crispin
> I'd be a bit more comfortable if we had more facts coming out from
> NeXT. Right now we have a number of details from ITS's side, and
> very little from NeXT's. Maybe that means NeXT doesn't have a good
> answer, or that NeXT is just plain stupid and does not realize how
> deeply this might effect the NeXTSTEP fans which still exist.
NeXT never provides facts. This is why NeXT is such a dismal failure. I
wouldn't call NeXT stupid. Self-destructively paranoid, yes, but not
stupid.
Gerben Wierda
[some valid points removed]
>Nobody was hypnotized by Jobs when he presented contracts they should
>sign. They were there themselves. And you can say NO to Jobs. And you can
>say Fuck-off to Jobs, even without having money in the bank.
But what if you develop WebRex and NeXT decides to change the license
agreement for EOF/PDO in such a way that NeXT makes $25000 for every
WebRex sold? And I recall that Steve Sarich also had a story about some
contract that tried to bully them into something.
It looks like NeXT tried to change the rules when ITS was far into the game. I
don't like that idea very much.
>(Okay, Mr Roskott, time for your daily walk, and then it;s time for
>therapy again...)
Busje komt zo :-)
--Gerben
Steve Sarich III
writes:
(stuff omitted)
> Once of the central claims that Ted made was that he had an
> "interested" customer. The sense that I got from his post, was that
> NeXT "actively" attempted to get the customer to *not* buy the product
> from Ted. I'm sorry, but MCCA or otherwise, I don't see how this is
> anything other than anti-competitive.
In our case, the way they did this was to go to our customers, DEC, NCR,
Intel, for example, and tell them that there might be "legal
ramifications" if they did business with us. As you all know, this is a
red flag for large companies and it is no less than an implied threat that
they might get sued, or otherwise become legally entangled, if they do
business with us. NeXT execs vehemently denied, of course, that they ever
did this, but I spoke with people at all three of these companies that
told me the *exact* same story, right down to the wording of what was said
and who said it. Who would you believe?
I would be willing to bet that the same "legal ramifications" arguement
was used with customers against ITS by NeXT. This is not just
anti-competitive, but violates Federal law (however, let's not get into
another legal discussion...PLEASE...save it for comp.sys.next.antitrust
:-)
>
> I 100% agree with Paul Lynch when he said that you are side-stepping
> the issue.
I have to agree with Hadar again (this is getting to be a habit :-)
Steve
John Kheit
> WebObjects from the unnamed guy who left NeXT.
> Let's assume that others at NeXT actually got the idea for
> WebObjects on their own, independently. This is certainly
> possible.
Let me just interject here... As this is a topic I have just
finished studying, I can actually say something that may help (for
a change :).
First, even if the employee's idea was copied/used by NeXT, there
would be no legal problem with NeXT implementing it itself. Idea's
are not copyrightable or patentable. Furthermore, since this
web_access idea is not patentable (it certainly not a novel idea
that couldn't have been thought up by other skilled people in the
industry) it could only be copyrightable... The significance of
that is, even if NeXT developed their web_access prodcut after,
(rather than before or at the same time) they are legally allowed
to do so, as long as they do so independently... i.e. not
stealing/copying implementation details.
The only thing that is 'wrong' here in a legal sense (at least as
far as Ted's story purports) is that NeXT used unfair practices to
push ITS out of the web_access market, NOT that NeXT has such a
product, that it may or may not have derived from an idea made by
a former employee.
> Still, as an owner of WebPages I'd obviously be interested in
> knowing what the future holds for it. I guess I've been getting
> increasingly pessimistic about seeing any future upgrades to it,
> and if that's true then that will lessen my enthusiasm for it.
I too just bought a copy of WebPages. I think it's just dandy.
It would be a shame to see this product die...If ITS is leaving
will they sell off WebPages to someone in the NeXT market? I really
hope they would, its very nice (pun intended :).
--
Thanks, Later, John Kheit )^> %^)
monoChrome, Inc. | New York Law School
NEXTSTEP Developer | Opinions expressed represent me only...
Telepathy, It's coming | MIME & NeXTmail OK--PPP (3P)
jkh...@cnj.digex.net | http://cnj.digex.net/~jkheit
ch...@its.com
> First, even if the employee's idea was copied/used by NeXT, there
> would be no legal problem with NeXT implementing it itself. Idea's
> are not copyrightable or patentable. Furthermore, since this
> web_access idea is not patentable (it certainly not a novel idea
> that couldn't have been thought up by other skilled people in the
> industry) it could only be copyrightable...
Thanks for your comments, although the US Patent Office appears to use
different criteria to determine patentability than your description. :-)
Please note that ITS has never suggested than NeXT "cannot" produce
WebObjects, nor have they been the receipient of a warning from lawyers.
Unfortunately, the converse is not true.
> The only thing that is 'wrong' here in a legal sense (at least as
> far as Ted's story purports) is that NeXT used unfair practices to
> push ITS out of the web_access market, NOT that NeXT has such a
> product, that it may or may not have derived from an idea made by
That's the primary reason ITS has brought this topic up in public. It
doesn't really matter whether NeXT copied the concept behind WebRex after
they were shown a demonstration of WebRex, or whether they developed
WebObjects independantly.
It's not even so much whether NeXT's actions were illegal, it's their
behavior towards one of the very few remaining ISV's left that I hope to
ensure other people in this marketplace are aware of.
>> Still, as an owner of WebPages I'd obviously be interested in
>> knowing what the future holds for it. I guess I've been getting
>> increasingly pessimistic about seeing any future upgrades to it,
>> and if that's true then that will lessen my enthusiasm for it.
>
> I too just bought a copy of WebPages. I think it's just dandy.
> It would be a shame to see this product die...If ITS is leaving
> will they sell off WebPages to someone in the NeXT market? I really
> hope they would, its very nice (pun intended :).
I hope ITS will be able to support WebPages the way the product deserves.
I hope I can continue to provide support for the large number of
CrashCatcher customers I've done business with.
Ted Shelton has indicated that ITS will make every effort to continue to
support our customers. I wish to say that, regardless of what happens to
CrashCatcher as a product, I will continue to provide what support I can,
even if it is on my own time as a private individual.
-Chuck
Ted Shelton
> No one finds it interesting that Ted wrote his "NeXT shouldn't be
messing
> with the web" comments before he announced Web Rex publicly. I found it
> somewhat interesting that he had purchased Web Pages and WebRex while
> saying that the web was no place for someone to make money? Somewhat
> disengenuous to say the least.
>
Joe:
Thanks for bringing this up, as I have been meaning to bring it up myself
but keep forgetting.
I still think that it is CRAZY for NeXT to be doing anything in the web
space, rather than having a third party partner pursue this market niche.
Here are my reasons:
(a) The web market is very undefined -- an appropriate market for a small
scrappy company that can change directions quickly and that has a small
enough burn rate that it can sustain itself while it figures out the
proper business model for this emerging market
(b) NeXT's business model has been to sell $1 million deals to large
corporations -- and it has built a sales, support, and engineering
infrastructure to support a small number of large customers. The Web
market is a completely different deal -- you are not selling million
dollar packages to CIOs -- you are selling $5,000 packages to a company's
HR department. NeXT is not structured to succeed in this market space.
(c) In order to succeed, NeXT needs to focus on a single business model,
and excel within that niche -- I believe that NeXT can succeed by selling
network application development tools for large $$ to big company CIOs.
In any case, it is schizophrenic to believe that you can both sell big $$
packages to CIOs and small $$ software to department managers and build a
successful business.
(d) NeXT needs more partners, and needs to learn how to leave something
on the table for those partners. NeXT gains by having a third party
community out there taking risks with new technology and promoting NeXT's
products at the same time. The WWW would have been a perfect place to
foster a community of ISVs.
Joe -- The Web is no place for a company like NeXT to make money. A small
company like ITS with sufficient venture $, and sufficient focus on the
market can survive long enough to where there is a money making business
on the Internet. NeXT needs to make money TODAY on the products it
understands how to sell TODAY -- to me this means OpenStep, and more
importanly DOLE, PDO, and the networked application strategy.
I believe that I am being intellectually consistent
Reasonable people may differ in opinion.
yours
Ted
--
<ADDRESS>
Ted Shelton, President
IT Solutions, Inc.
500 West Madison, Suite 2210
Chicago, IL 60661
(312) 474-7700
</ADDRESS>
John Kheit
> John Kheit <jkh...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
> > First, even if the employee's idea was copied/used by NeXT,
> > there would be no legal problem with NeXT implementing it
> > itself. Idea's are not copyrightable or patentable. Furthermore,
> > since this web_access idea is not patentable (it certainly not
> > a novel idea that couldn't have been thought up by other skilled
> > people in the industry) it could only be copyrightable...
> Thanks for your comments, although the US Patent Office appears
> to use different criteria to determine patentability than your
> description. :-)
As far as the statutes are concerned, ideas are not patentable.
For example, I can have an idea for a holographic 'tv'... I can't
go to the patent office and say here is the idea, I want the patent
on it. You have to put it in a tangible form, or show the plans
to do so. Anyone can overhear my idea and then go and implement
it, and patent it. Ideas are not in and of themselves patentable...That
is the patent law... The clerks at the patent office are not as
up on this stuff as the lawyers that practice it... That is one
of the reasons why there are such high patent failure rates. Just
getting the patent through the patent office doesn't mean it will
survive a competitor's contest.
> Please note that ITS has never suggested than NeXT "cannot"
> produce WebObjects, nor have they been the receipient of a warning
> from lawyers. Unfortunately, the converse is not true.
Yes, Chuck, the way you tell the story...NeXT has clearly crossed
the line into anti-trust territory. If the story is as you describe,
you have a very strong case against NeXT for anti-competitive
practices...
> It's not even so much whether NeXT's actions were illegal, it's
> their behavior towards one of the very few remaining ISV's left
> that I hope to ensure other people in this marketplace are aware
> of.
Again (Chuck, please excuse the but covering nature of my prose,
it's not that I doubt what you say, it's that I don't want to get
in the middle of something that I don't have all the facts too...)
if the story is as you say...NeXT is just plain stupid. Personally,
I bet NeXT could have bought you out...if they just wanted the
thing all to themselves. Said, here ITS, we want to be friends,
and we want the product now, here's 500k for the prodct...I bet
you guys might have gone for that. I don't understand the wisdom
of making enemies when it's not necessary. Never burn a bridge...you
never know when you may need to cross it.
Steve Weintz
[...]
> I thought about this for a while. If I buy Personal Oracle, throw
> Netscape's new server products on top of it, then vend it to the world,
> what's going to happen?
>
> ITS has opened a can of worms. Can I buy a single-user license of database
> then use the Web to make it act multi-user? Only one person (the web
> server) is using it.
>
> Does anybody know what database vendors are doing about this? Is NeXT the
> only ogre or are they just scouting for the rest of the pack?
>
> If you buy WebObjects, what does your database vendor have to say? Do you
> need a site license or can you get away with one seat?
>
We looked into this back around the beginning of the year, in response to a client's
request. At that time Sybase told us we'd need to buy a complete site license
(unlimited users, ~US$ 30,000) in order to hook up their product to a Web site.
--
| Steve Weintz * Partner, New Media,Ltd. * st...@dave-world.net |
| 217.344.5303 * fax 217.344.8981 * http://gecko.dave-world.net/|
Michael McCulloch
>About all I can do shake my head and continue to support the NeXTSTEP software
>vendors by buying their software. I am not going to walk away from NeXTSTEP,
>not yet. On a technical side it serves me, and serves me well. Raw emotion
>doesn't solve my computing problems, NeXTSTEP does.
Perhaps the unwillingness to "walk away from NS" in favor of something
else *is* more raw emotion than anything else. As a recovered NS
advocate, that's the way I see it given what the rest of the
marketplace offers nowdays as compared to 1990.
---
Michael McCulloch
mmcc...@usit.net
Oak Ridge, TN
Terry Wilcox
Steve Weintz <st...@dave-world.net> wrote:
>
>We looked into this back around the beginning of the year, in response to a client's
>request. At that time Sybase told us we'd need to buy a complete site license
>(unlimited users, ~US$ 30,000) in order to hook up their product to a Web site.
So NeXT isn't alone in its stand on licensing. This doesn't surprise me
at all.
What surprises me is that nobody is saying that Sybase is practicing
anti-competitive practices.
Did ITS talk to database vendors about WebRex? Were they planning on
buying site licenses for their clients' databases or were they going to do
the "one license only" thing they had planned for EOF/PDO?
ITS may have been lucky it was only NeXT that threatened them. Can you
imagine Sybase or Oracle coming after you? And if they knew they needed a
site license for a database, why didn't they suspect that NeXT might feel
the same way about PDO/EOF?
NeXT must have explained this to ITS, yet Ted chose to complain loudly
and publicly. It's strictly a site license vs. single user license issue.
Anti-competitive? Not likely.
This whole argument is over license interpretation. NeXT is likely just
rewriting its license to make sure people don't keep trying this.
What a joke. NeXT protects its licenses and is suddenly a villain.
Terry Wilcox
--
Terry Wilcox
Arcane Systems Ltd.
te...@arcane.com
Felipe A. Rodriguez
writes:
>In article <43q33b$p...@xanadu.io.com> te...@io.com (Terry Wilcox)
writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> I thought about this for a while. If I buy Personal Oracle, throw
>> Netscape's new server products on top of it, then vend it to the
world,
>> what's going to happen?
>>
>> ITS has opened a can of worms. Can I buy a single-user license of
database
>> then use the Web to make it act multi-user? Only one person (the web
>> server) is using it.
>>
>> Does anybody know what database vendors are doing about this? Is NeXT
the
>> only ogre or are they just scouting for the rest of the pack?
>>
>> If you buy WebObjects, what does your database vendor have to say? Do
you
>> need a site license or can you get away with one seat?
>>
>
to a client's
>request. At that time Sybase told us we'd need to buy a complete site
license
>(unlimited users, ~US$ 30,000) in order to hook up their product to a
Web site.
>
>| Steve Weintz * Partner, New Media,Ltd. * st...@dave-world.net |
>| 217.344.5303 * fax 217.344.8981 * http://gecko.dave-world.net/|
>| P.O.Box 742 | "Bobcat, do you like hamsters or gerbils?" |
>| Urbana, IL USA 61801 |"Well, there's more dark meat on a hamster."|
Yes but why should you have to? The WebRex or WebObjects server can be
limited to querying the database in a serial manner as if it were a single
user while still providing the illusion of multiple access to Web clients.
Kind of like 10 people reading a book by passing it around every few
moments.
So long as the Web server issues queries in a serial fashion I fail to see
why you would need more than one database license. Perhaps someone can
clarify my understanding of software licenses which revolves around the
analogy of a book. The reason you need multiple licenses for multiple
users is because a book cannot be read simultaneously by more than one
individual (well, not easily anyway). The only difference between access
from a WebServer and a human operated client app is the rate of serial
access.
NeXT's legal letter as posted by Ted Shelton indicates PDO/EOF cannont be
used on machines connected to the Internet until a license fee is paid.
This makes little sense because these products are designed to be used
over an internet it is their purpose. The extent of an internet is a
subjective interpretation. Is it a violation of your PDO/EOF license if
your LAN is hooked up to the global Internet in some way (what's the point
of having a LAN/WAN if you cannot get E-mail, WWW etc.)? Furthermore,
NeXT's license agreement change in regards to PDO/EOF seems to have a
problem in that these products are not in this context themselves hooked
up to the global Internet. While, most UNIX boxes they run on are
connected in some way to the global Internet. The Web server is the
actual program hooked to the internet. PDO/EOF are merely brokering
communications between a Web server on one side and a database on the
other. Is NeXT going to specify that your PDO/EOF license forbids these
products from being hooked up to certain types of software i.e. WebRex or
a homebrew facimile?
--
Felipe A. Rodriguez # ...it cannot be called ingenuity to kill
Agoura Hills, CA # one's fellow citizens, to betray
# friends, to be without faith, without
ro...@terra.crystalengine.com # mercy, without religion; by these means
(NeXTmail preferred) # one can acquire power but not glory.
(MIMEmail welcome) # --Nicolo Machiavelli
Fabie...@free.fdn.org
> In article <43q33b$p...@xanadu.io.com> te...@io.com (Terry Wilcox) writes:
> [...]
> We looked into this back around the beginning of the year, in response to
a client's
> request. At that time Sybase told us we'd need to buy a complete site
license
> (unlimited users, ~US$ 30,000) in order to hook up their product to a Web
site.
> --
> | Steve Weintz * Partner, New Media,Ltd. * st...@dave-world.net |
> | 217.344.5303 * fax 217.344.8981 * http://gecko.dave-world.net/|
> | P.O.Box 742 | "Bobcat, do you like hamsters or gerbils?" |
> | Urbana, IL USA 61801 |"Well, there's more dark meat on a hamster."|
Did you check with MSQL 6.0?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabie...@free.fdn.org (NextMail/MIME accepted)
Fabien Roy Consultant
NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/EOF Consultant, SYBASE DBA
10 rue de la DEFENSE 93100 MONTREUIL, France
Tel: 33 1 45 28 32 23 Fax: 33 1 48 55 09 90
Ted Shelton
> Did ITS talk to database vendors about WebRex? Were they planning on
> buying site licenses for their clients' databases or were they going to
> do the "one license only" thing they had planned for EOF/PDO?
As a matter of fact, as an Oracle reseller we HAVE explored this issue
with Oracle. Their policy is for the customer to configure their server
for a "maximum number of concurrent users" and to purchase a license for
that many users. You can buy 1 or 20 --> and you simply pay for that
many. It is up to you to demonstrate (if asked) how your software only
allows 1 or 20 (or whatever) to connect simultaneously. WebRex, for
example, allows you to set a "high water mark" of simultaneous
connections. NeXT could have chosen this route.
I have placed calls to Sybase and Informix to inquire about their current
policies, and will report back to this committee with my findings.
> NeXT must have explained this to ITS, yet Ted chose to complain loudly
> and publicly. It's strictly a site license vs. single user license
> issue.
> Anti-competitive? Not likely.
>
> This whole argument is over license interpretation. NeXT is likely just
> rewriting its license to make sure people don't keep trying this.
>
> What a joke. NeXT protects its licenses and is suddenly a villain.
>
IMHO, I don't think so. I agree that NeXT is trying to protect something.
And by the way, I did not call them a "villain" -- I merely described what
happened in the course of my trying to develop a 3rd party application
that worked with their software.
There were a lot of ways that NeXT could have chosen to work with ITS, but
they preferred to discourage us from being in the market.
By the way -- for all of you who have been asking -- YES we will continue
to develop and support WebRex on NEXTSTEP, alongside our NT version. We
still love the technology here! We just think we will be making a lot
more money (thus staying in business) with our native NT product.
yours,
R S Rodgers
>In article <43ruha$s...@ni1.ni.net>,
>Felipe A. Rodriguez <ro...@terra.crystalengine.com> wrote:
>>Yes but why should you have to? The WebRex or WebObjects server can be
>>limited to querying the database in a serial manner as if it were a single
>>user while still providing the illusion of multiple access to Web clients.
>>Kind of like 10 people reading a book by passing it around every few
>>moments.
>
>
>But legally?
Actually, organizations play a lot of tricks with licenses these days,
legally. Overloading a license if pretty common -- you have 50 licenses
and thus should only have 50 simultaneous users, but you don't use those
licenses from 8PM to 8AM. So you make the software unavailable for those
12 hours and have 100 simultaneous users during the day. A similar practice
is to boost your license server's max num of concurrent users during peak
use hours above your actual number of genuine licenses, and below your
actual number of licenses in off hours.
I'm not sure where those particular practices stand, legally, but an
analogous situation is completely legal. International companies can
use their licenses between two sites in very different time zones. You
have 1000 licenses for software X, but it's only available in one part
of the world for 12 hours, and in the other part of the world for 12
hours. This is one way to control your software costs, but I suppose
the prices will just go up in response, meaning that the net gain was a
lot of paper work and an upgrade revenue for license server vendors.
[...]
>NeXT isn't being unreasonable. Well, no more so than Sybase.
Sybase is an established vendor with an established product. NeXT
isn't. I'm guessing that most "alternative" companies will never
figure out the magic rule that the underdog doesn't just have to be
technically better than the "standard", but also cheaper and easily
available, on their own. The list of companies that failed to figure
this out grows daily, *especially* in the computer market.
--
---- Windows 95 and NT: IBM's OS choices for IBM hardware, x86 and PowerPC ----
"That's not our primary target. There are people out there who love
[OS/2 Warp] on the desktop, but our focus is on large enterprise customers."
-- chief executive officer Louis Gerstner (IBM) (July, 1995)
Gerben Wierda
>As far as the statutes are concerned, ideas are not patentable.
Normally, yes. In practice, software patents are patents on logical constructs, or
in other words, ideas.
>of the reasons why there are such high patent failure rates. Just
>getting the patent through the patent office doesn't mean it will
>survive a competitor's contest.
Being in the right also doesn't mean that you survive the contest. It's more a
contest on how much money you can spend on legal issues than other. And it's
a contest in the market where being under a lawsuit implies the killing of your
sales.
>if the story is as you say...NeXT is just plain stupid. Personally,
>I bet NeXT could have bought you out...if they just wanted the
>thing all to themselves. Said, here ITS, we want to be friends,
>and we want the product now, here's 500k for the prodct...I bet
>you guys might have gone for that. I don't understand the wisdom
>of making enemies when it's not necessary. Never burn a bridge...you
>never know when you may need to cross it.
Right.
Terry Wilcox
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Actually, organizations play a lot of tricks with licenses these days,
>legally. Overloading a license if pretty common -- you have 50 licenses
>and thus should only have 50 simultaneous users, but you don't use those
>licenses from 8PM to 8AM. So you make the software unavailable for those
>12 hours and have 100 simultaneous users during the day. A similar practice
>is to boost your license server's max num of concurrent users during peak
>use hours above your actual number of genuine licenses, and below your
>actual number of licenses in off hours.
No wonder vendors don't trust their customers any more. Just because a
lot of people do it, doesn't mean it's right. If a license says "a
maximum of 10 simultaneous users", it doesn't mean 240 user-hours per
day, it means no more than 10 users at any given time. If they meant 240
user-hours per day, they'd say "240 user-hours per day". As a software
vendor, I'm against violating license agreements in favor of convenience.
>Sybase is an established vendor with an established product. NeXT
>isn't. I'm guessing that most "alternative" companies will never
>figure out the magic rule that the underdog doesn't just have to be
>technically better than the "standard", but also cheaper and easily
>available, on their own. The list of companies that failed to figure
>this out grows daily, *especially* in the computer market.
True. But NeXT has every right to have stupid licensing agreements.
It's fine to say "NeXT has some remarkably unintelligent license
agreements", but claiming that they're out to get you because you just
happened to be the first company to run afoul of those agreements is
ridiculous.
If any company had proposed a similar scheme to NeXT before ITS, NeXT
would have done the same thing. It's not personal, it's business. And even
if it's bad business, it's legal.
Personally, I would have taken the WebObjects deal and run with it.
WebObjects is getting some publicity and may generate some business. Even
if Netscape destroys the WebObjects market share, NeXT has received some
positive publicity. Those prospective clients who phoned you about this
cool WebObjects thing may not buy WebObjects, but at least they've phoned
you. They know you exist. That's an important part of marketing.
They might even phone you for something else.
Garance A Drosehn
> Joe Freeman writes:
> > No one finds it interesting that Ted wrote his "NeXT shouldn't
> > be messing with the web" comments before he announced Web Rex
> > publicly. I found it somewhat interesting that he had purchased
> > Web Pages and WebRex while saying that the web was no place
> > for someone to make money? Somewhat disengenuous to say the
> > least.
> Joe:
> Thanks for bringing this up, as I have been meaning to bring it
> up myself but keep forgetting.
> I still think that it is CRAZY for NeXT to be doing anything in
> the web space, rather than having a third party partner pursue
> this market niche. Here are my reasons:
[skipping over four fairly persuasive reasons
as presented by Ted...]
> Joe -- The Web is no place for a company like NeXT to make money.
> A small company like ITS with sufficient venture $, and sufficient
> focus on the market can survive long enough to where there is a
> money making business on the Internet. NeXT needs to make money
> TODAY on the products it understands how to sell TODAY -- to me
> this means OpenStep, and more importantly DOLE, PDO, and the
> networked application strategy.
> I believe that I am being intellectually consistent
While I thought your position was pretty weird at the time, this
explanation clears it up quite a bit. It would have helped a lot
to have seen this logical layout at that time, but I can believe
you might have been busy with other, much more pressing, issues
than articles in an advocacy newsgroup.
I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but your reasoning
is sensible and does not leave you looking hypocritical for pursing
the web as part of your own business plan. I guess I end up in the
weird position of wishing WebObjects, WebRex, and WebPages all good
luck, even if that seems like I'm rooting for alternate sides of
contest.
Probably should root for Netsurfer, OmniWeb, and Spiderwoman too,
while I'm at it. It's nice to see developers still providing
worthwhile products to the NeXTSTEP community. Hopefully they'll
all soon be rewared with a much larger OpenStep community to make
a living from.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
John Kheit
> In article <43q9lr$k...@news4.digex.net>, jkh...@cnj.digex.net
> says...
> >As far as the statutes are concerned, ideas are not patentable.
> Normally, yes. In practice, software patents are patents on
> logical constructs, or in other words, ideas.
Hi Gerben :)
Hmm, I don't know what more I can do to convince you...I really
don't want to retype the fed statute. Let me first try and paraphrase
it, worst comes to worst, I'll retype the icky thing :)
Ideas are not patentable. So me having an idea for a holographic
TV would not enable me to get a patent. A detailed explanation on
how to build one, might be patentable... So if I had schematics
on how to build one, step by step, that would enable anyone to
construct such a beast, that is patentable. So there is a difference
between a mere idea, and an idea that you can implement in some
tangible form/way. Makes sense so far, right?
Ok, in comes software, and we start getting blurry. Logical
constructs, in and of themselves, are not patentable. They, in a
sense, are like doors and windows used in making a building...you
cant get protection on the doors and windows, but can on the overall
building... So what is exactly patented when one gets a software
patent? That is a good question, with a rather muddy answer...
What is patentable, in a sense, is the same thing that is patentable
re the holographic TV. The 'schematic process' that explains the
original, novel, substantial and non-obvious process/resulting_object.
And this muddy 'answer' is why we have such high failure rates for
software patents. Original, is a very low standard. Originality
is a simple requirement that it be at least a little different from
something done before (so a MonaLisa with a mustache would be
considered original). Novel, is a tough standard, it requires that
the object do something never seen or done before (so the telegraph
did something substantial that we weren't able to do or see done
before). Non-obvious, is also a big hurdle, it means that a competent
professional in the field concerned would NOT have been able to
'put 2 and 2' together and reach the same idea (so you wouldn't be
able to get a patent on a clock radio, if the clock and radio
already existed [maybe copyright, but not patent]).
In our case with the web_access tools, I think that it is an obvious
thing that many professionals in the industry could/and_may have
come up with. Web access already existed, and so did database
access, they made a clock radio of sorts in the way of WebRex and
WebObjects.
However, the clerks in the Patent office probably won't see it that
way, and may let the application through and get approved. That
patent will likely fail any contest.
> >of the reasons why there are such high patent failure rates.
> >Just getting the patent through the patent office doesn't mean
> >it will survive a competitor's contest.
> Being in the right also doesn't mean that you survive the contest.
> It's more a contest on how much money you can spend on legal
> issues than other. And it's a contest in the market where being
> under a lawsuit implies the killing of your sales.
This observation is very true only when the different sides are
clearly mismatched in the way of resources, and only when we are
dealing with an issue that can go either way (i.e. something that
may seem novel, or may not, a close call like a new biological life
form...genetic engineers use already existing things, but it is
something we never saw before...). So on a close call issue like
that, ms v. me would result in a ms victory. However, on a clear
cut issue, like web access, I would likely prevail.
However, you are very right that it seems that companies get these
patents just to bully other companies, and to make us lawyers
wealthier :) There is only one solution to this, and that is to
get the patent office to hire very competent people in the computer
field to be involved in the approval process, and prevent people
from obtaining patents when they should not be able to get them.
Anyway, the short of it is, ideas are not patentable, and if a
software patent does survive a contest in court, then that patent
is a really deserving one. However, such patents are rare, and
often become useless by the time they are approved b/c the industry
moves so fast as compared to the legal process.
Steve Sarich III
> No wonder vendors don't trust their customers any
> more.
>
> ....NeXT has every right to have stupid licensing
> agreements. It's fine to say "NeXT has some
> remarkably unintelligent license agreements", but
> claiming that they're out to get you because you
> just happened to be the first company to run
> afoul of those agreements is ridiculous.
>
> If any company had proposed a similar scheme to
> NeXT before ITS, NeXT would have done the same
> thing. It's not personal, it's business. And even
> if it's bad business, it's legal.
>
Wrong! I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is called "stupid licensing
agreements"....it's called: "restraint of trade", possibly violates one or
more Federal Anti-trust statutes, and is *exactly* what we've all
criticized MS for.
> Personally, I would have taken the WebObjects
> deal and run with it. WebObjects is getting some
> publicity and may generate some business. Even if
> Netscape destroys the WebObjects market share,
> NeXT has received some positive publicity. Those
> prospective clients who phoned you about this cool
> WebObjects thing may not buy WebObjects, but at
> least they've phoned you. They know you exist.
> That's an important part of marketing.
>
You're living in a dreamworld, Terry. No "prospective clients" have
called this week. Nobody outside of this group has ever even heard of
"WebObjects" and even WE don't really know what the hell "WebObjects" will
really do...let alone what it will cost. Why the hell do you think people
are going to start phoning "us"?? How do people know "we" exist? By
reading all the NS related publications? By seeing all the NS
advertising? Through all the co-marketing opportunities offered by NeXT
for their valued third party partners? Maybe at their booth at the
upcoming Comdex show where NeXT has invited their ISV's to participate?
Get a life...get a clue..get outa here.
You're right about one thing...they "may not buy WebObjects"...no one is
selling it, so how can anyone buy it? Oh, you mean that when and if they
actually ship it, right?
"if Netscape destroys the WedObjects market share"...you mean, when and if
it ever ships, don't you? When "might" that be? Jobs says "6-9 months".
When has NeXT *ever* shipped anything on time? Would you say that "9
months" could very possibly mean a year or more??? Netscape will probably
"wait up" for them. Bah, ha, ha, ha!
"NeXT has received some positive publicity"...yeah, right..you could
almost fill a #10 business envelope with all the positive publicity NeXT
has gotten in the last five years....but only if you include your posts.
"They might even phone you for something else."
Right..."I found your number on an antique NeXT CD...do you know where I
can find a non-ADB mouse for an old circa 1989 NeXTSTATION???? Do you
know anyone who might know??? Is their a comp.sys.next.collectors group?"
Yup...I can hear the phone ringing off the hook already :-) Damn! I'm
already starting to feel like a guy that collects Elvis memorabilia....but
with no market for it.
(a lot of really raunchy Michael Jackson>Steve Jobs>Barry Manilow jokes
deleted...just out of good taste)
Steve
Peter-john Byrnes
>IMHO, I don't think so. I agree that NeXT is trying to protect
>something. And by the way, I did not call them a "villain" -- I
>merely described what happened in the course of my trying to develop
>a 3rd party application that worked with their software.
> --
> <ADDRESS>
> Ted Shelton, President
> IT Solutions, Inc.
> 500 West Madison, Suite 2210
> Chicago, IL 60661
> (312) 474-7700
> </ADDRESS>
No, the word "villain" was not used, but you did make them out to be
conspiratorial thieves, which comes close in my book. I refer back to
the original narrative:
[Disclaimer: I know the inherent obnoxiousness of posting someone's
own writing back to them, but I also want to make clear that I'm not
misremembering the post or coming up with my arguments out of thin
air.]
[...paragraphs taken out of context but not otherwise altered...]
>To the best of my knowledge, the first person to conceive of the idea
>which Jobs calls "WebObjects" was a developer who left NeXT in
>December of 1994, and was one of the four core people who developed
>EOF. He did not share this idea with NeXT until after he had left,
>and started to develop what we now market as WebRex. He made the
>mistake of pride -- he was excited by his creation and showed it to
>people at NeXT, who chose to steal the ideas.
>There are no laws against stealing ideas (unless you have more luck
>with the patent office than I ever have had) though I, of course,
>continue to be irritated everytime I hear Steve say that his
>technology is "first" -- since it so clearly (to me) is not.
Then, after Charles d'Harcourt wrote his angry denial of those
charges, you replied:
[...again, ripped from context but not altered...]
>My intention was not to "slander" anyone. As I said, "to the best of
>my knowledge..." the idea of WebObjects originated outside NeXT. I
>am happy to hear that people inside NeXT independently came up with
>the "idea." In this case, it is not clear to me what "idea" we are
>talking about, as the basic notion of connecting databases to the Web
>has been floating around for a long time.
>In any case, it has certainly become obvious that arguing about who
>thought of what first is pointless. I am happy to agree that lots of
>people have the same kinds of ideas all of the time.
We weren't arguing over who independently thought of the idea first,
however. Your charge was specifically that developers from NeXT, Inc.
stole the original concept from your developer and your company.
That's a very different (and clearly inflammatory) charge, and
beginning it with an equivocating introductory clause does not grant
you the ability to drop it with a shrug and move on, without further
comment from others. To now claim further that you never intended to
paint them as villains strains credibility. Are not thieves villains?
I agree that there are other charges in your narrative that NeXT, Inc.
should answer (though I'm not holding my breath). I agree that these
other charges are serious, also. I commend you for posting your
initial narrative, as it's given this group something serious and
substantial to discuss. And I apologize if this posting, and others,
have dissuaded other developers from posting their own stories. We
need more candor around here, not less.
But if the stealing charge is a strawman, or tarbaby (pick your
metaphor), blocking our path down the road to further enlightenment,
it's one that you placed squarely in the center of that road.
--
Peter-john Byrnes
Online Scholarship Initiative 804/924-3169
Electronic Text Center byr...@virginia.edu
University of Virginia (NeXT/MIMEmail OK)
joe_freeman
writes:
> Wrong! I'm not a lawyer, but I believe this is called "stupid licensing
> agreements"....it's called: "restraint of trade", possibly violates one
> or more Federal Anti-trust statutes, and is *exactly* what we've all
> criticized MS for.
I think you have to have some market share before you can violate
anti-trust. It is hard to see how a company with 0% of the web market is
restraining trade. Yes, the number is > 0% but not by much.
> You're living in a dreamworld, Terry. No "prospective clients" have
> called this week. Nobody outside of this group has ever even heard of
> "WebObjects" and even WE don't really know what the hell "WebObjects"
> will really do...let alone what it will cost. Why the hell do you think
> people are going to start phoning "us"?? How do people know "we" exist?
I think there is a good question hidden under all of the rhetoric. The key
think with a new market and product like WebObjects is execution of getting
the product in front of people and out on the market. NeXT needs ot really
work on getting enough ISVs on line near the launch date to assure customer
success. I assume that is the "glass half full" side of your paragraph.
> By reading all the NS related publications? By seeing all the NS
> advertising? Through all the co-marketing opportunities offered by NeXT
> for their valued third party partners? Maybe at their booth at the
> upcoming Comdex show where NeXT has invited their ISV's to participate?
I thought NEXT did a nice job for 3rd parties at ObjectWorld. The space
was pretty good and the OPENSTEP day was a nice lead in. Small/Medium
sized companies have to pick where to spend their money. You do that every
day.
> Get a life...get a clue..get outa here.
It is the rare person who sacrifices himself while trying to save others.
No matter how horrible , they hang in there in the hope of helping someone
else the inevitable heartache.
--
Joe Freeman J...@FreemanSoft.com (NeXT,MIME,ASCII Mail)
FreemanSoft Inc. A NEXTSTEP software and consulting company in MD.
Opinions expressed do represent those of FreemanSoft Inc and not NeXT Inc.
joe_freeman
>
> NeXT isn't actually changing the rules on PDO/EOF licensing. It's always
> been one license per user. They're clarifying how that rule pertains to
> access over the Internet (and by default, over the web).
>
> I'd like to thank ITS for bringing this to attention. I was recently
> thinking of something similar, but now I'm all too aware of licensing
> issues.
The number one place for the use of WebRex or WebObjects is the internal
web. Internal webs are not the internet. Does this affect the licensing.
I don't have the license in front of me and cannot answer the question. If
it doesn't conver internal networks than ITS has little to complain about
at this stage of the game..
joe_freeman
writes:
>
> I don't want to waste bandwidth by quoting everything (yet again :-),
> but I wish to say that Chuck has posted an excellent response to the
> multitude of off-base responses by Joe Freeman. Thanks Chuck, it was
> right on target.
Gee thanks Hadar. I thought that answering the portion of the postings
that I knew something about was appropriate both in conetent and bandwith
reduction. It appears that I was mistaken and should have written all
kinds of accusations and speculations about all the topics of Ted's
posting. I'll try to blend in with the group better in the future.
(( I was suprised by the tone of your posting give the email you and I have
exchanged on this topic ))
Hadar Pedhazur
: In article <43hpof$l...@ns2.ny.ubs.com> hadar@amazon (Hadar Pedhazur)
I've tried to stay away from this thread after posting heavily in the
beginning. I guess my previous success is over :-). I do apologize for
the tone Joe, seriously! I guess I over-reacted to the multitude of
posts from you, which, while "clarifying", were both not "official"
responses from NeXT, and also dealt with only a portion of the
charges.
From my perspective, they have still not been dealt with. For example,
it has been postulated here that the licensing was undergoing change
"anyway" and that WebRex accelerated the disclosure of that. To Ted,
it appeared as if the licensing had changed to harm him, but in truth,
it was happening anyway. This should be a relatively straightforward
thing for NeXT to either document, or more importantly, *explain*.
What was wrong with the old licensing, what was the change designed to
protect, and when were they going to "spring" it on the community?
This thread has become tired for the following reasons:
1) Most pro-NeXT posters respond to a single point until the anti-NeXT
crowd either cries uncle, or says it's irrelevant.
2) Most anti-NeXT posters give zero credence to the pro-NeXT posters
and so don't deal with the issues (some very good) that they bring up.
Oh well. In general, this group is split too widely by zealots on both
sides. I am a staunch supporter of the NeXT environment, and of the
excellent things that talented developers can do with it. I am still
as happy (if not more so :-) today to use NS in my business as I was
the first day back in 1990!
However, this does not make every decision NeXT makes a good one, as
some posters in this group would have us believe. The fact that I
disagree with some of NeXT's moves doesn't make the anti-NeXT
(anti-Christ :-) crowd correct either. There are *many* intelligent
people who post about quite a number of interesting topics in this
forum. It would be *really* interesting for me, if people applied a
little dampening field to their "typical" initial reactions of pro or
con and thought about their responses and applied their obviously
sharp powers of eloqution and rapier wits to the issues at hand.
Again Joe, sorry for the tone.
Rod Ragner
> In article <43rug9$c...@bermuda.io.com> te...@io.com (Terry Wilcox)
writes:
> >
> > NeXT isn't actually changing the rules on PDO/EOF licensing. It's
always
> > been one license per user. They're clarifying how that rule pertains
to
> > access over the Internet (and by default, over the web).
> >
> > I'd like to thank ITS for bringing this to attention. I was recently
> > thinking of something similar, but now I'm all too aware of licensing
> > issues.
>
> The number one place for the use of WebRex or WebObjects is the internal
> web. Internal webs are not the internet. Does this affect the
licensing.
> I don't have the license in front of me and cannot answer the question.
If
> it doesn't conver internal networks than ITS has little to complain
about
> at this stage of the game..
>
> Joe Freeman J...@FreemanSoft.com (NeXT,MIME,ASCII Mail)
> FreemanSoft Inc. A NEXTSTEP software and consulting company in MD.
>
> Opinions expressed do represent those of FreemanSoft Inc and not NeXT
Inc.
> Yes, I do work for NeXT and they are not half as suprised about it as I
am.
Strictly speaking (from reading the new licenses for EOF and PDO published
by Ted Shelton), WebRex (and WebObjects) can not necessarily provide web
pages which utilize EOF if every workstation which can browse the page
does not have an EOF license.
We currently have 41 computers in our department running NeXTSTEP. Only
three of these machines have a license for EOF (we are currently stimbling
along with our DBKit applications until we can afford 38 more EOF licenses
and convert our DBKit applications to EOF).
Therefore, we would be in violation of the EOF licensing if we permitted
any of the other 38 computers to access the home page controlled by WebRex
or WebObjects...
If I am wrong, I would like to know about this...
--
Rod Ragner, UNIX Systems Administrator/NEXTSTEP Application Developer
Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Iowa State University, 2630 Vet. Med. Bldg., Ames, Iowa 50011
Voice: (515) 294-4751, FAX: (515) 294-6961 or 3564, (NeXT Mail accepted)
Email: rra...@stallion.vm.iastate.edu or str...@iastate.edu
Peter Urka
: Personally, I would have taken the WebObjects deal and run with it.
: WebObjects is getting some publicity and may generate some business. Even
: if Netscape destroys the WebObjects market share, NeXT has received some
: positive publicity. Those prospective clients who phoned you about this
: cool WebObjects thing may not buy WebObjects, but at least they've phoned
: you. They know you exist. That's an important part of marketing.
: They might even phone you for something else.
They might even stay on the line longer, and remember you more because of
that, if they were also asking about "this WebRex thing, now what's that?"
Peter