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