rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (06/28/89)
In article <50@eileen.samsung.com> sacco@eileen.samsung.com (Joseph E. Sacco) writes:
+ "As per our discussions the pricing structure for C++ Release 1.2 and
+ 2.0 are as follows:
+
+ AT&T Language System, Rel 1.2 C++ Language System, Rel 2.0
+ Initial CPU: $2000 Initial CPU: $20,000
+
+ Each Additional CPU: $1000 Each Additional CPU: $5000
+
+ Initial Sublicensing Fee: $2000 Initial Sublicensing Fee: N/A
+ (June 30th)
+
THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
Several of us in my office had been hoping that we could get a site license
so that we could put C++ on all our development machines, and then get all
the developers broken into C++ and OOP by using C++ initially "as a better C",
and then learning OOP techniques.
Well, if these really are the prices, I'm sorry to say that C++ won't be
used here. I think we were hoping more like $2K for a site license.
AT&T, are you listening???
I understand that gnu g++ depends upon gcc. Is a gcc available for 3B's?
[The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the official position
of Pacific Bell.]
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiacoggins@coggins.cs.unc.edu (Dr. James Coggins) (06/28/89)
In article <50@eileen.samsung.com>, sacco@eileen.samsung.com (Joseph E. Sacco) writes: > > For many of us in the C++ community who have been waiting anxiously > for months for the release of Rev 2.0, the announcement of June 30 as > THE official release date evoked an audible sigh of relief. Here, too. ... then he found out the pricing structure... > I DAMN NEAR DIED! Me too, when I found out from your article! > There as also a brief, verbal discussion on fees for universities. I > believe it was stated that there would be no more site licenses but > rather a flat fee of $300 per CPU. The university fee schedule was not > included in the FAX I received so I do not have that information in > writing. > > I was under the impression that AT&T was interested in making C++ the > next "standard" language of choice. I see the five-to-ten-fold fee > increase to be counter to that goal at this time. It would appear > that AT&T is pushing end users toward third party suppliers of binary > versions of the translator. I believe that action to be premature. > John Carolan described Release 1.2 as $2000 worth of bugs. He was > correct. However, given access to the source code and the C++ community > through the net, one could work with Release 1.2 to learn the language and > sketch inital designs. Given the current state of flux of the language The attitude seems consistent with "Thanks for your contributions, university communities. Now get out of our way so we can make some MONEY!" Without drastic change within about 2 weeks, I'm switching to g++. In fairness to the AT&T employees who have been contributing to the Net community, someone should point out (and it might as well be me) that (a) pricing is not done by our AT&T friends on the Net so don't flame them for things not under their control, (b) the AT&T folks on the net have to be restrained about their opinions on things like ridiculous toads setting even more ridiculous pricing policies, so inquiries to them often won't be answered because they can't, and they also can't engage in gratuitous flaming of their own company, and (c) the AT&T folks on the net are not official spokespeople for the company so don't expect any pronouncements through the Net. Rest assured there's been some hair pulled in Murray Hill. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. James M. Coggins coggins@cs.unc.edu Computer Science Department Questions: "How 'bout them HEELS?" UNC-Chapel Hill Correct response: Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 "How 'BOUT them Heels?" and NASA Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Science ---------------------------------------------------------------------
newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server) (06/29/89)
In article <5668@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes: > >Several of us in my office had been hoping that we could get a site license >so that we could put C++ on all our development machines You should also note that the licence does not cover workstation networks explicitly. Speaking with Diane Leigh at AT&T Unix Europe (our distributor), she agrees that this is a problem, in particular for universities ($300/CPU) where workstation networks are common. The interpretation that has been used before essentially goes as follows: - A "CPU" can mean a common file server. - With a single licence, neither source nor binary code may be stored on other computers. - Other workstations may "access" the C++ compiler on the workstation, e.g., load it into memory for execution. - If you have different sorts of workstations in your network, multiple binary images may be compiled from a single source, but must still reside on a single file server. Please take this information with a grain of salt: - I may have mis-interpreted Diane. I will send her a copy of this posting, and post corrections if required. - The AT&T "workstation policy" may of course change, and Diane warned me that her information had to be double-checked. Dag Michael Bruck -- Department of Automatic Control Internet: dag@control.lth.se Lund Institute of Technology P. O. Box 118 Phone: +46 46-108779 S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Fax: +46 46-138118
carroll@paul.rutgers.edu (V. I. Lenin) (06/29/89)
> Rest assured there's been some hair pulled in Murray Hill.
Also in Liberty Corner.
--
martin carrolljima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) (06/30/89)
In fairness both to users to C++ and to people at AT&T that have been working hard on the language, I'd like some AT&T marketing person to "officially" respond here as to what the policies really are, and what the logic behind the policies is. Please respond here to this request.
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (07/01/89)
In article <50@eileen.samsung.com> sacco@eileen.samsung.com (Joseph E. Sacco) writes:
+ "As per our discussions the pricing structure for C++ Release 1.2 and
+ 2.0 are as follows:
+
+ AT&T Language System, Rel 1.2 C++ Language System, Rel 2.0
+ Initial CPU: $2000 Initial CPU: $20,000
[etc.]
WARNING! The price of C++ 2.0 depends greatly on the nature of the licenses
you may have with AT&T.
Per Chuck Northrop of AT&T (415-830-4409) (PacBell's pricing and sales
person at AT&T):
Because PacBell has a general UNIX source license and because
most of my offices development machines have specific cpu source
licenses, it will cost us a whole order of magnitude less per
cpu than the prices cited above. The prices cited above are
probably those that apply if you have absolutely no UNIX source
license.
I recommend you contact AT&T before you bounce around the office like I
did when I initially read about the prices in this newsgroup.
--
Rob Bernardo, Pacific*Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code consultant, "Go `C' UNIX" editor
Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, Californiahughes@ns.network.com (Jim Hughes x1676) (07/01/89)
I feel quite let down. I like C++, I use C++. I HAD to buy the source for C++ to get the tasking library working. I, like Bjarne, wanted to do discrete simulations in a C style language, but in a language with SIMULA class structures. I am now using C++ and can not go back to SIMULA. The pricing structure is basically to allow AT&T to make money from people who are making money from selling C++ to end users. I have no problem with AT&T getting a proper return on their investment. I, however, am an end user. I have one C++ licence. I am NEVER going to sell a copy. As a matter of fact, I don't care about the source for cfront and munch. I am also running C++ on a machine where object code C++ is available for 1/2 the price I paid for the source. All I really care about is the libC source. I feel that for AT&T to ask $20,000 for the C++ (since I have a license, they only want $10K, thanks for the break chump) from someone who wants the source to insure that problems with the library doesn't stop development is robbery. For god sake, I want to help make the product better. Since AT&T's actions, I am forced to continue to use 1.2 until Sun (a $1 billion corp) finds the time to port 2.0. I have problems which I know for a fact are solved in 2.0. It would be a waste of time for me to fix these bugs in an obsolete compiler. My corporation has a Unix source licence. We do not port Unix. We use that licence to work on bugs. We payed AT&T $40K for that license. Are you telling me that C++ is 1/2 of all Unix?! I have told this to my AT&T rep, and it fell on deaf ears. He (more likely his bosses) are too busy counting their commisions to notice that a large population which can (does) help them is being locked out. Jim Hughes Hughes@network.com (Network Systems Corporations is not affiliated with the Network Systems division of AT&T. NSC is a netowrking company which markets HYPERchannel. These are my personal FLAMING opinions.)
rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) (07/01/89)
A short while ago I posted: + it will cost us a whole order of magnitude less per + cpu than the prices cited above. THE SINCEREST APOLOGIES. It turns out the salesperson who quoted me the low C++ 2.0 prices was mistakenly quoting the prices for C++ 1.2. :-( He called back after he discovered his mistake. And I apologize for passing on the wrong information. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific*Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code consultant, "Go `C' UNIX" editor Email: ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob OR rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Office: (415) 823-2417 Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center Residence: (415) 827-4301 R Bar JB, Concord, California