anthony@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Lawrence Anthony) (05/06/91)
In article <NENAAS.91Apr30101122@ulrik.uio.no> nenaas@ulrik.uio.no (Nils-Eivind Naas) writes: > >I was offered, and ordered, a multi-user extension to the 2-user licence >on a 720. The HP part number is 82359A, and is stated to be a 32-user licence. >My salesman may have made a typing error,however; I distinctly remember him >mentioning a 16-user licence in our first conversation. > >I will not know for certain until delivery is made some time in July, but all >the evidence points to the availability of at least 16-user licences. > >Nils-Eivind Naas, ISAF,Oslo nen@isaf.no or nenaas@ulrik.uio.no I have a copy of the relevant page in the hp catalog and it says: B2353A HP-UX 8.05 Run-Time Environment, 32 user. U.S. List $1,895 Lawrence Anthony anthony@csvax.cs.caltech.edu
graham@hparc0.HP.COM (Graham Eddy) (05/20/91)
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
i understand "no. users" to be calculated as follows:
no. users = no. real ttys logged in irrespective of usernames +
no. userNAMEs logged in over LAN irrespective of no. ptys
i don't say this good. i don't say it is bad. i AM saying that if you
don't like it, contact AT&T who impose the silly rule [ok, i say it's
bad :-)]. there is absolutely no point beating on your vendor who is
fulfilling his legal obligations - would you prefer to be dealing with
someone who doesn't recognise his contractual obligations?
-graham