hxe@rayssd.UUCP (02/18/87)
As is the case in most large bureaucracies, paperwork gets buried.
A long time ago I submitted purchase orders for Writer's Workbench,
then available only from Western Electric. Since that time, the PO
got lost and WE is defunct as we know it (I saw it coming - they
never answered their phones or returned calls anyway), and I need
to start over.
Could anyone with any info on Writer's Workbench and/or Documenter's
Workbench please mail me the address of who I order it from? Also,
what are the advantages of one over the other? Unless this is of
consuming interest to the world at large, I'd appreciate it if you'd
mail me the info. If I garner any interesting comments I'll
summarize them to the net.
By the way, we have every relevant UNIX license known to humankind,
and we're running UNIX on VAXes, Pyramids, Suns, Apollos, PDPs,
Mentors, ComputerVisions, and PCs, if any of that is necessary.
Many Thanks,
--Heather Emanuel
hxe@rayssd.ray.com
{allegra,cbosgd,cbatt,uiucdcs,gatech,ihnp4,linus,raybed2}!rayssd!hxe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this
article are obviously my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that
sing the best." --Thoreaunsources@wheaton.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <672@rayssd.RAY.COM> hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) writes: > >Could anyone with any info on Writer's Workbench and/or Documenter's >Workbench please mail me the address of who I order it from? Also, >what are the advantages of one over the other? Unless this is of >consuming interest to the world at large, I'd appreciate it if you'd >mail me the info. > Ditto. Some people here are interested in it. I called AT&T (800)..UNIX and started an afternoon-long chase of 800 numbers. About the ninth on the list was some local sales place where I was asked "What's UNIX?" AT&T say they no longer give out source. Ok. They give out binaries for *B* only. Not okay. I don't have any *B*'s. How does one get hold of this for 4.2? Or doesn't one? Thanks,
shor@sphinx.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <417@wheaton.UUCP> nsources@wheaton.UUCP (Net Sources) writes: >AT&T say they no longer give out source. Ok. They give out binaries for >*B* only. Not okay. I don't have any *B*'s. How does one get hold of this >for 4.2? Or doesn't one? It looks like we're getting ours in a backward manner. We're buying ditroff support for our Talaris 1200 from Talaris, and they include DWB in the package (for about 1/3 of what AT&T charges for binaries, btw). We've got a Pyramid 90x. -- Melinda Shore ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor University of Chicago Computation Center shor@sphinx.uchicago.edu
scott@tg.UUCP (02/24/87)
[Sorry, I lost the original copy of the articles to quote from]
1) Call 800-828-UNIX for info of Documentor's Workbench (I called them as
recently as mid-December).
2) AT&T will not sell source without at lease a System V source license
of any flavor or has previously purchased Writer's Workbench while holding
a v7 or 32V license (this is what they told me over the phone).
3) Binaries are for the 3B computers only. AT&T is no longer selling source
or binaries for non-AT&T machines (this is a totally different flame not
to be fanned here).
I cannot understand why people are having problems with this number (unless
AT&T has changed policies--again). I have called it with questions concerning
System V licensing, HONEY DanBer UUCP licensing, and even DWB and have found
the only problem is the cursed hold button. Just call them and tell the
operator you need questions answered about Un*x related software. If this
fails, I will try later this week and report back to the net.
Good Luck!
Scott Barman
{philabs, pyrnj}!tg!scotthedrick@topaz.UUCP (02/24/87)
If you have a Pyramid, and you are buying the Documentors' Workbench from a third party, you'll end up with two copies of DWB. DWB, including ditroff, is a standard feature of Pyramid's release 4.0. However if you have a Talaris, you still need the fonts and a postprocessor for that printer, so getting support from Talaris is still reasonable. Now the question is: whose version of ditroff do you run? My inclination would be to use Pyramid's. The complexity is that ditroff (in violation of all Unix principles) uses binary forms of various configuration files (normally present in /usr/lib/font/devxxx). These depend upon the particular struct declarations used by your implementation, and how your compiler compiles them. If Pyramid has built their ditroff from a different version than Talaris, Pyramid's ditroff and Talaris' filter may not be able to use the same format of these files. There is a sort of compiler that turns the text form of the declarations into the binary form (called makedev). Each vendor supplies one that makes the right format for its software. In the worst case, you may need to have ditroff and the postprocessor use different directories, each containing binaries compiled by its own version of makedev. (In case you don't have the source needed to point the software at the right directory, we have had good luck using emacs to edit binaries for the purpose of changing strings. We use this to change the default device type from aps to qms in Pyramid's ditroff.) We were initially somewhat sceptical about using ditroff on Pyramid's Berkeley side. Pyramid supplies it in the ATT universe. The question was whether it would be compatible with Berkeley's troff macros, eqn, etc. The answer turns out to be yes, at least for the things we have tried. We have put up ditroff on the UCB side, calling it ditroff instead of troff, so we can have both versions present. It seems to work just fine with no other changes.
patwood@esquire.UUCP (02/28/87)
DWB source may be licensed without a UNIX source license. The cost is $4000; the binary redistribution fee is $3000. Note that System V Release 2 and later versions of UNIX source contain DWB, except for the makedev program, which is essential for doing development work with DWB. Apparently, the one program simply slipped through the cracks, as it is in the System V Release 3 source. Pat Wood
guy@gorodish.UUCP (03/01/87)
>Note that System V Release 2 and later versions of UNIX source contain >DWB, Excuse me? None of the S5R2 distribution tapes I've seen had any trace of DWB whatsoever on them. >Apparently, the one program simply slipped through the cracks, as it is >in the System V Release 3 source. Nor does any DWB code appear on the standard S5R3 source distribution.
stefan@wheaton.UUCP (03/03/87)
>is $4000; the binary redistribution fee is $3000. Note that System V >Release 2 and later versions of UNIX source contain DWB, ... In other words, if I get System V.3, I'm in business? If this is true, then it's cheeper to get System V.3 (academic institution) than DWB. In answer to those who suggest 1 (800) something-UNIX, I tried it a couple times. Sorry, only AT&T machines need apply. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Brandle UUCP: ihnp4!wheaton!stefan Wheaton College "But I never claimed to be sane!" ---------------------------------------------- MA Bell: (312) 260-4992 ---------
patwood@esquire.UUCP (03/05/87)
In article <14302@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: > >Note that System V Release 2 and later versions of UNIX source contain > >DWB, > > Excuse me? None of the S5R2 distribution tapes I've seen had any > trace of DWB whatsoever on them. > > >Apparently, the one program simply slipped through the cracks, as it is > >in the System V Release 3 source. > > Nor does any DWB code appear on the standard S5R3 source > distribution. Talk to Microport. They sell UNIX, they don't sell DWB (their text processing package is part of the full V.2 distribution) they don't have makedev because it wasn't distributed with the V.2 source, and they will have it in their V.3 package. Same goes for Masscomp. We sell DWB related software -- we have to keep track of what appears in what version. ditroff and related programs appear in the System V.2 source distributions. It's not called DWB, by the way, it's just part of the code. Pat Wood
guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (03/05/87)
>Talk to Microport. They sell UNIX, they don't sell DWB (their text processing >package is part of the full V.2 distribution) The fact that their text process package is part of the full V.2 distribution in no way implies that "they don't sell DWB". It may merely mean that they bundle V.2 and DWB into what they sell as their "full V.2 distribution", and either swallow the cost of the DWB sublicense or include it in the price of their UNIX license. >they don't have makedev because it wasn't distributed with the V.2 source, If you're referring to the System V, Release 2, (no version number) source for the VAX, then not only was "makedev" not distributed with that source but neither was (Device|Typesetter) Independent "troff", "pic", "tbl", nor anything else. Period. I've seen that distribution and there was NO DWB anywhere on it. >We sell DWB related software -- we have to keep track of what appears in >what version. ditroff and related programs appear in the System V.2 source >distributions. Look. I read the System V, Release 3, Source Code Provision tape into a machine here. It had no DWB on it. I read the System V, Release 2, (no version number) VAX source tape into a machine at my previous employer. It had no DWB on it. If you claim it's "just part of the code", then you'd better explain why it wasn't on those tapes. If you have to keep track of what appers where in which version, you don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. I suspect you're getting your information second-hand. *I* got it first-hand, by looking at what was *on* those source distributions after having read them in myself. If *you* saw it on your disk after reading in a source distribution tape, then please tell us what the precise name of the product that included that distribution tape was. If you just heard this from somebody else, then please take future claims by that person about what appears on various source distributions from AT&T with a grain of salt, because they don't know what they're talking about in this case. >It's not called DWB, by the way, it's just part of the code. And if you claim "it's not called DWB", you'd better explain why AT&T sells a package called the Documenter's Workbench....