alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) (11/10/89)
In article <4903@yunexus.UUCP>, davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > > [ A customer has discovered that the 2-user limit is real... ] > > Is this a limitation which DEC feels is advisable, to limit sales? I can't speak for DIGITAL. For an official answer contact your local sales office. I suspect that if we had a choice in the matter, there wouldn't be a limit. > Is it a new contractual requirment of BSD (:-))? No, it's an old contractual requirement with AT&T. The base system is a 2-user system. Upgrades are avialable for 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 64+ users. The expense varies according to the number of users and covers the royalties that we pay back to AT&T. > Or is it just a misconception of DEC's that the 3100 is a fast rainbow, > and should be restricted as cruelly as that sterling, successfull machine. For a lot of customers the 2-user limit is sufficient. If you need more that option is available. > > To quote a previous commentator, "mickey mouse crap and marketing tactics > that stink." Nop, merely holding up our end of a legal contract. > > --dave > -- > David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or > 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave > Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: > CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb. -- Alan Rollow alan@nabeth.enet.dec.com
collins@grumpy.cs.unm.edu (Bill Collins) (11/10/89)
In article <4903@yunexus.UUCP> davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: > One of the first messages I got to see when we set up a DEC loaner >was a prohibition to my logging in from another machine: it had >too many users on it (I believe two X-windows were open) and would >not allow another person to log in. No, X-window != login-session > > This **may** be consistent with a 2-user licence, but it's a bit >inconsistent ... > > Is this a limitation which DEC feels is advisable, to limit sales? >Is it a new contractual requirment of BSD (:-))? Unix is not only a trademark of AT&T, they wrote it. AT&T is very interested in making sure that they get their royalties from software derived from their efforts. People who sell it must have some way of answering to AT&T agreements that they must make.(not to say money can't be had on the side.) > To quote a previous commentator, "mickey mouse crap and marketing tactics >that stink." Really? I seem to hear that a lot. Perhaps you are a little unhappy that you lack the user upgrade which may be purchased? Perhaps you too are astonished that DEC, like *other* companies wants to make money. I don't like it either. But lets not be naive. Try not to point figners as you only have few, and there are more than these who would have you pay for their services. If you want to be "that way", know what you are doing. Bill collins@unmvax.unm.edu gatech!unmvax!collins ------------------- "You're a mushroom, they plant you in a dark corner, they dump S... on you, and you grow."
khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) (11/10/89)
In article <564@unmvax.unm.edu> collins@grumpy.cs.unm.edu () writes: >In article <4903@yunexus.UUCP> davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >> One of the first messages I got to see when we set up a DEC loaner >>was a prohibition to my logging in from another machine: it had >>too many users on it (I believe two X-windows were open) and would >>not allow another person to log in. >>..... > >Unix is not only a trademark of AT&T, they wrote it. AT&T is very interested >in making sure that they get their royalties from software derived from their >efforts. People who sell it must have some way of answering to AT&T agreements >that they must make.(not to say money can't be had on the side.) > ... >Perhaps you are a little unhappy that you lack the user upgrade which may >be purchased? Perhaps you too are astonished that DEC, like *other* companies >wants to make money. >I don't like it either. But lets not be naive. Try not to point figners as >you only have few, and there are more than these who would have you pay for >their services. If you want to be "that way", know what you are doing. If you buy a machine from most other vendors say MIPS, SGI, Sun, etc. you find more livable minimal licenses. ATT wants their money, but they do not mandate what DEC is doing. It is DEC's decision all the way. Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@sun.com It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO" "There is NO defense against the attack of the KILLER MICROS!" Eugene Brooks
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (11/10/89)
In article <4903@yunexus.UUCP>, davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >> Is this a limitation which DEC feels is advisable, to limit sales? alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) writes: > Nop, merely holding up our end of a legal contract. We've got to come up with a (:-))-glyph to indicate irony: Allan took me a bit too literally... What I was commenting on was the marketing decision that DEC made to sell machines with a two-user license, presumably lowering their licensing costs. Various other vendors have elected to sell machines with a greater initial-user limit, and in some cases without a compiled-in limit where the nature of the hardware prevented more than one user from getting usefully work done, thus enforcing the policy without explicit implementation. I can get around the limit {\em check} (and breach my agreement with DEC and AT&T) by using rsh and x-windows, as suggested by various commentators. But even if I do so, I have little reason to expect that the loophole won't be closed. And I'm at a University who has a policy of at least {\em trying} to honor all its contractual commitments. [and previously] > For a lot of customers the 2-user limit is sufficient. If > you need more that option is available. If the machines are being used as {\em single-user} stations, with the local user as administrator, user and operator, a one-user limit is sufficient. The limit can be in hardware, the operating system proper (eg, it could run MS-DOS) or in operating system support programs (login). The mechanism doesn't matter. It is is used in a very "bare" distributed environment, with all disks and printers located and administered non-locally, the limitation may not be noticeable. As soon as it is to be used in cooperative work, is attached to a centrally administered network (with remote monitoring, advisors, backups, ad infinitum), or the two-user limit becomes a disqualifying limitation. That DEC elects to impose a limit is praiseworthy: they're trying to honor their agreements. That DEC elects to impose a limit that will need to be raised after installation, at a non-trivial cost, is known in the trade as "low-balling". I shan't comment on the ethics of the latter. --dave c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (11/11/89)
collins@grumpy.cs.unm.edu (Bill Collins) writes:a >I don't like it either. But lets not be naive. Try not to point figners as >you only have few, and there are more than these who would have you pay for >their services. If you want to be "that way", know what you are doing. I confess I don't understand the second sentence above. I **thought** I was pointing out a positioning error on DEC's part, one that was a disservice to both the company and the customers. >> To quote a previous commentator, "mickey mouse crap and marketing tactics >>that stink." >Really? I seem to hear that a lot. Yes, and for good reason. Senior DEC managment need to provide a bit of "managerial oversight", and avoid letting oversights like this (:-}) get through the marketing process. >"You're a mushroom, they plant you in a dark corner, they dump S... on you, and >you grow." Nope. I'm an evergreen, I'm dark, I'm threatening, I'm prickly and I block the bitter winds and snow of Winter. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
howard@wsqtb2.crd.ge.com (Donald R. Howard) (11/11/89)
In article <474@shodha.dec.com> alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) writes: > > For a lot of customers the 2-user limit is sufficient. If > you need more that option is available. While >2 user licenses are available for non-workstation DEC Ultrix systems, we have been firmly and repeatedly told by our local DEC sales-critters that Ultrix workstations CAN NOT BE UPGRADED to more than two users. There are even rumors that in the future, the login limit will be 1 (one). True? Or is this one of those "I can tell you're lying. Your lips are moving." situations? --- Don Howard howard@crd.ge.com (518)387-5183 GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, N.Y.
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (11/11/89)
howard@wsqtb2.crd.ge.com (Donald R. Howard) writes: | While >2 user licenses are available for non-workstation DEC Ultrix | systems, we have been firmly and repeatedly told by our local DEC | sales-critters that Ultrix workstations CAN NOT BE UPGRADED to more than two | users. There are even rumors that in the future, the login limit will be 1 | (one). Ours has already stated the cost of upgrading to (if memory serves) an 8-user license. This indicates its either wrong, or our salesperson is (:-)). --dave c-b [For those of you who haven't guessed from the sarcasm, I really rather like DEC, but often find their business practices doubtfull, inadvisable and showing a lack of rather **basic** marketing insight. I used to work the other side of the fence and ended up having to swot up on non-profit organizational marketing... which may make me unusually unkind to fools] -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie) (11/12/89)
In article <474@shodha.dec.com>, alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) writes: > (In response to questions about DEC's two-user limit on ULTRIX licenses and DEC's charges for "upgrading" it): > I can't speak for DIGITAL. For an official answer contact > your local sales office. I suspect that if we had a choice > in the matter, there wouldn't be a limit. > > No, it's an old contractual requirement with AT&T. The > base system is a 2-user system. Upgrades are avialable > for 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 64+ users. The expense varies > according to the number of users and covers the royalties > that we pay back to AT&T. I am not arguing with DEC's attempts at making a profit on license sales. But I do object to the ongoing campaign of its employees to pretend that the li- cense limits and "update" charges for ULTRIX are AT&T's fault and gain. This is nonsense: DEC charges a tremendous markup over AT&T's royalties. AT&T's royalty schedules have been presented in several publications lately and one only has to compare this to DEC's prices to see that this is true. Beyond the high "upgrade" costs, DEC also practices a double-charge scheme if one wishes to upgrade again, later. That is, an n-user "upgrade" is always calculated and counted from a single-user license, regardless of what one has already purchased/paid for. I have been told that this will be changed... greg pavlov (under borrowed account), fstrf, amherst, ny
elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie) (11/12/89)
In article <3803@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, howard@wsqtb2.crd.ge.com (Donald R. Howard) writes: > > While >2 user licenses are available for non-workstation DEC Ultrix systems, > we have been firmly and repeatedly told by our local DEC sales-critters that > Ultrix workstations CAN NOT BE UPGRADED to more than two users. There are > even rumors that in the future, the login limit will be 1 (one). > > True? No, not anymore, tho I can't say anything about the last sentence (who can predict what DEC will try to pull in the future ?). Apx. 3 months ago, DEC got caught up in the glasnost euphoria and began to offer user license "up- grades" for its workstations...... greg pavlov (under borrowed account), fstrf, amherst, ny
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (11/13/89)
From article <2573@canisius.UUCP>, by elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie): > In article <474@shodha.dec.com>, alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) writes: >> No, it's an old contractual requirement with AT&T. The >> base system is a 2-user system. Upgrades are avialable >> for 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 64+ users. The expense varies >> according to the number of users and covers the royalties >> that we pay back to AT&T. ATT only specifies 2-user and unlimited user licenses. Where does DEC come up with 4, 8, 16 etc? ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda pacbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (11/14/89)
In article <932@fiver.UUCP> palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > From article <2573@canisius.UUCP>, by elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie): > > In article <474@shodha.dec.com>, alan@shodha.dec.com ( Alan's Home for Wayward Notes File.) writes: > > >> No, it's an old contractual requirement with AT&T. The > >> base system is a 2-user system. Upgrades are avialable > >> for 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 64+ users. The expense varies > >> according to the number of users and covers the royalties > >> that we pay back to AT&T. > > ATT only specifies 2-user and unlimited user licenses. Where does > DEC come up with 4, 8, 16 etc? Licensing is different for each relase from AT&T - only the latest System V releases include the 2+unlimited break you mention and they also have various provisions that a company pushing BSD w/System V compatibility might be loath to agree to. DEC may or may not be working from an older license that still has the multiple n-user breaks (at might be subsidizing the cheap 2-user license from the $$$$ n-user ones!). The thing that really irritates me is DEC's position that an Ultrix license is some kind of "added value attachment to a particular system", rather than a corporate "right to use on any chosen system". I've paid big bucks to license Ultrix on an olde VMS 785, and now DEC wants $50K more if I turn that system off and boot Ultrix up the 8600 sitting next to it... Needless to say, there is no provision in DEC's trade-in games or particular resale value that lets me recover any of the cost of the license... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
rwood@vajra.dec.com (Richard Wood) (11/14/89)
>> But I do object to the ongoing campaign of its employees to pretend that >> the license limits and "update" charges for ULTRIX are AT&T's fault and >> gain. This is nonsense: DEC charges a tremendous markup over AT&T's >> royalties. AT&T's royalty schedules have been presented in several >> publications lately and one only has to compare this to DEC's prices >> to see that this is true. Although I'm not speaking for DEC, some of us are getting tired of everyone deciding that they understand the situation when UNIX licensing is clearly a black art. Don't tell me you know about AT&T's Ts&Cs for UNIX licensing - for *RE-SELLERS* of UNIX, every agreement is negotiated separately, and the terms are under non-disclosure. We legally cannot tell you under what terms we are allowed to re-sell UNIX. So it's highly unlikely that you would know how much we have to pay AT&T. It's also important to note that Digital is operating under a perpetual license that covers an earlier version of UNIX than the one AT&T is currently shipping. Even if AT&T changes it's end-user prices, or even lowering reseller prices, Digital's price doesn't change! We could probably re-negotiate a new license, but there were terms in the System 5.3 license that they offered us that we objected to so strongly that we founded OSF - partially as a way around AT&T. The royalty schedules you've seen are undoubtedly for AT&T's version of UNIX, and they can price them however they like. Our fees to AT&T are fixed by contract. [On another topic, many of Digital's less-UNIX-knowledgable sales reps aren't good sources for information on Digital's ULTRIX. We're doing our best to educate them. In the meantime: yes, multi-user licenses are available on *all* ULTRIX systems, including workstations.] *UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T in the U.S. and other countries. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood Corporate Worksystems Team Digital Equipment Corp. ========================================================================
elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie) (11/14/89)
In article <672@granite.dec.com>, rwood@vajra.dec.com (Richard Wood) writes: > > .......... Don't tell me you know about AT&T's Ts&Cs for > UNIX licensing - for *RE-SELLERS* of UNIX, every agreement is negotiated > separately, and the terms are under non-disclosure. We legally cannot > tell you under what terms we are allowed to re-sell UNIX. > But you expect us to take at faith that DEC did such a poor job of nego- tiating its license that it has to charge up to $40,000 for an unlimited user license, while SUN charges $2,000 and MIPS includes it "free" with ALL its systems ?? > ......... Even if AT&T changes it's end-user prices, or even > lowering reseller prices, Digital's price doesn't change! We could > probably re-negotiate a new license, but there were terms in the System > 5.3 license that they offered us that we objected to so strongly that we > founded OSF - partially as a way around AT&T. > All for the good of DEC's customers, no doubt...... (AT&T has been raising prices, by the way) > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Wood Corporate Worksystems Team Digital Equipment Corp. > ======================================================================== greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
elgie@canisius.UUCP (Bill Elgie) (11/14/89)
In article <672@granite.dec.com>, rwood@vajra.dec.com (Richard Wood) writes: > > [On another topic, many of Digital's less-UNIX-knowledgable sales reps > aren't good sources for information on Digital's ULTRIX. We're doing > our best to educate them. In the meantime: yes, multi-user licenses are > available on *all* ULTRIX systems, including workstations.] > But can you really expect them to keep up ? After all, after years of dealing with "marketing configurations" (what's the difference between a a MicroVAX "multiuser system" and a MicroVAX "server" ? There may be one, but it sure ain't in the hardware), it may be a bit hard to accept a sem- blance of rationality. Especially since not all of the games have been cancelled... greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
collins@grumpy.cs.unm.edu (Bill Collins) (11/15/89)
In article <127708@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman ... ^^^^^^^ Isn't this some sort of branch of AT&T, or something? :-) >If you buy a machine from most other vendors say MIPS, SGI, Sun, etc. >you find more livable minimal licenses. Doesn't SUN sell a 2-user license?(Really, I am not sure.) >... It(the license agreement) is DEC's decision all the way. No, it wasn't. It was between AT&T and DEC lawyers. But I do wish that DEC could have gotten a better agreement from AT&T.(Provided that AT&T could have been more giving.) Bill Bill collins@unmvax.unm.edu gatech!unmvax!collins ------------------- "Stop the catigorical imparitive."
tihor@acf4.NYU.EDU (Stephen Tihor) (11/15/89)
Generally the licensing issues can be spit into two parts: It is a good idea/ it is evil to give discounts to small machines and single user systems You charge too much for your SOFTWARE+HARDWARE Please be careful to distinguish between the two. Also try and cast the first type of question into the opposite light (discounts for little'uns, charging the same for a bigun's as the equivalent buncha litt'uns.)