Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dicomed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!dicomed!boylan
From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.followup,net.micro
Subject: Re: AT&T and the 3B*2
Message-ID: <190@dicomed.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Jun-84 18:47:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: dicomed.190
Posted: Sat Jun  2 18:47:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 08:26:44 EDT
References: <961@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: DICOMED Corp., Minneapolis
Lines: 32

A number of people have made comments in defense of the partitioning
of UNIX software by various vendors to the effect that it makes the
software cheaper.  I have to disagreed with this position since if
the software is sold to anyone, the vendor will have to have the
support personnel and in the case of resellers, they still have
to recover their UNIX licensing fee which they pay to Bell, er AT&T
regardless of how much of UNIX they actually package in the systems
they sell.

While there are some additional costs, such as phone consulting, if
UNIX vendors sell all parts of UNIX instead of breaking it up, I
think they will not be terribly significant.  The only instance where
this obviously isn't true (that I can think of) is when the particular
vendor simply doesn't sell (say) the C compiler since said vendor
would then never have to deal with "how does this foobar work?".

The obvious reason for vendors spliting up UNIX when they sell it is
it's a good marketing trick to increase how much bucks they get.  It's
the same type of thing that's done in sell cars or anything else,
make the entry price low and get them on the "options".  From a business
standpoint it clearly makes sense and from a consumers point of view
it sucks.

As Steve Martin said, "Capitalism is not a pretty sight".

Hey, nothing's perfect.

-- 

	Chris Boylan
	{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan