topix@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (R. Munroe) (03/22/91)
With all the talk around this newsgroup re: Showcase, I think it would be mighty nice if someone from SGI would talk to the powers that be (read: lawyers) and respond as to whether or not Showcase will be available for ftp access. Two weeks ago I posted an article regarding this issue and I still haven't heard one way or another. Bob Munroe topix@utcs.utoronto.ca
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar21.201915.23361@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, R. Munroe writes: > With all the talk around this newsgroup re: Showcase, I think it would > be mighty nice if someone from SGI would talk to the powers that be > (read: lawyers) and respond as to whether or not Showcase will be available > for ftp access. Two weeks ago I posted an article regarding this issue > and I still haven't heard one way or another. > Bob Munroe > topix@utcs.utoronto.ca By and large, most of the people from SGI that read this newsgroup are members of its engineering community, and we are here on a strictly voluntary basis. We aren't in charge of setting policies for marketing, distributing, or supporting any of the systems and software that we offer. Legal issues aside, it's not as simple as just putting the software on sgi.sgi.com and posting a message to this newsgroup. Showcase is an SGI-supported product; this means that the Technical Assistance Hotline will have to be prepared to deal with customers who can't use FTP, either through their own unfamiliarity with the system, (SGI: "Are you on Usenet or Internet?" Customer: "What does that mean?"), unknown system adminstration difficulties, or network problems. We will have to service people who can't install the software properly because a network error corrupted their copy. We will have to support customers who didn't get a copy of the user documentation and call us over issues they might have resolved with the manual. This support which is directly linked to FTP distribution does cost us money, and also costs other customers in terms of slower response time to their concerns. Distribution through the normal sales channels avoids these problems by making sure that everyone gets the product in a consistent manner. If the $100 price tag on the standard distribution bothers you, consider that Showcase is comptetive with most of the drawing, illustration and presentation packages in the PC and Mac worlds, offers better performance than all of them, and costs less than they do. Also consider the support that I mentioned above. And if $100 still bothers you, simply wait for IRIX 4.0 which will include Showcase as part of the standard software distribution. While I personally have no idea whether or not we can and will distribute Showcase via the net (though I personally support the idea), I'm not surprised that there hasn't been an answer yet. The Showcase people are hard at work adding new features to the next release, not adding meetings with marketing, sales, support, and legal staff to their schedule. All statements in this article are my own, and not those of Silicon Graphics. m. __ \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. portuesi@sgi.com "a knife, a fork, a bottle and a cork..."
jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (03/24/91)
By and large, most of the people from SGI that read this newsgroup are members of its engineering community, and we are here on a strictly voluntary basis. We aren't in charge of setting policies for marketing, distributing, or supporting any of the systems and software that we offer. We should all be pretty thankful that many of SGI's engineers, scientists and an occasional Veep provide helpful information and software. Compare comp.sys.sgi with comp.sys.sun or comp.sys.next. It's much to SGI's credit that they allow their people to fill in the numerous ;-} knowledge gaps in the net's collective consciousness. Their presence tremendously increases the value of the newsgroup and reduces the Merlin Wall, a.k.a. the DEZ (De-Engineering Zone), which usually separates the engineering wizards from the outside world. I agree that it would be nice if we could pick up more goodies via FTP, but the NSF-Internet issues are messy. Let's hope that SGI will do what they can, but not get too pushy about it. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127
Scott Le Grand <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar22.174054.25110@odin.corp.sgi.com>, portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: > >By and large, most of the people from SGI that read this >newsgroup are members of its engineering community, and >we are here on a strictly voluntary basis. We aren't in charge >of setting policies for marketing, distributing, or supporting >any of the systems and software that we offer. This is indeed the real problem. You guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak. However, could you perhaps give us an e-mail or snail-mail address where we SHOULD send our grievances? Going through sales reps is about as useful as sticking one's head in a food processor. >Legal issues aside, it's not as simple as just putting the software >on sgi.sgi.com and posting a message to this newsgroup. Showcase >is an SGI-supported product; this means that the Technical Assistance >Hotline will have to be prepared to deal with customers who can't >use FTP, either through their own unfamiliarity with the system, >(SGI: "Are you on Usenet or Internet?" Customer: "What does that >mean?"), unknown system adminstration difficulties, or network >problems. We will have to service people who can't install the software >properly because a network error corrupted their copy. We will have >to support customers who didn't get a copy of the user documentation >and call us over issues they might have resolved with the manual. However, many people out here are paying rather large maintenance fees anyways to get access to that support line. A few perks now and then then could do a lot for customer attitude, which is something the management there seems to care about less and less.. >This support which is directly linked to FTP distribution does cost >us money, and also costs other customers in terms of slower >response time to their concerns. Distribution through the normal >sales channels avoids these problems by making sure that everyone >gets the product in a consistent manner. So why not give everyone with a decent maintenance contract a surprise package in the mail? It'd do wonders... >If the $100 price tag on the standard distribution bothers you, >consider that Showcase is comptetive with most of the drawing, >illustration and presentation packages in the PC and Mac >worlds, offers better performance than all of them, and costs >less than they do. Also consider the support that I mentioned >above. And if $100 still bothers you, simply wait for IRIX 4.0 >which will include Showcase as part of the standard software >distribution. $100 really isn't very much money, but if you just forked over $130,000 it seems like a really petty thing to do. For the past few years, I have always been forced to design all my graphical objects on home computers and then port them over. This is a step in the right direction for SGI, but I really wish they cared more about their customers after the sale has been made. >While I personally have no idea whether or not we can and will >distribute Showcase via the net (though I personally support the >idea), I'm not surprised that there hasn't been an answer yet. >The Showcase people are hard at work adding new features >to the next release, not adding meetings with marketing, >sales, support, and legal staff to their schedule. Again, it's a matter of principle. SGI's official policy seems to be "squeeze blood from stones". The machines are NOT cheap. Neither are the maintenance contracts. We'd like to think we're getting our moneys's worth. Since it has ALREADY been released, someone there should be making a real effort to get it to everybody. This is a very important piece of software to get out. To make it available on the net, you need only put a disclaimer that it will not be supported until the release of 4.0. Scott Le Grand aka sml108@psuvm.psu.edu
jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (03/25/91)
Let's see, if we assume an installed base of 30,000 (a moderately wild guess) of which say 50% (a completely wild guess) are 4Ds with their own update media contracts. At a distribution cost of about $100 per tape, that's a $1.5M expense to give users something many probably don't care about and which all will get with IRIX 4.0 anyway. Even if that overstates the number by a factor of 2 or more, it's still a pretty piece of change. Charging $100 would be reasonable were it not for the inconvenience that the procurement paperwork presents at many institutions. An intermediate solution would be to make the tape available free, on request, as has been done on occasion for other software products. Since in reasonable quantities, CD-ROMS are substantially cheaper than 1/4" tapes, making free "specials" available should become easier in the future. I too am bothered by the software unbundling that is sweeping (?) the industry. I'm glad that SGI will include showcase in the IRIX 4.0 distribution. I wish they would do the same for things such as DWB (Documenter's Workbench). There are very many IRISes out there that have commercial and free third-party software installed, but man pages are not available because there's no nroff, and the sysadmins haven't installed something free like awf. Custom software packages with obscure command line options are confusing enough to new users even with man pages. Unix sans nroff is a big step backwards in user friendliness. It's just another missing feature that makes many users flinch when they have to use another flavor of Unix, such as IRIX. In my experience, such "incompatibilities" are the second most common reason (behind third-party software availability) that people recommend other platforms. Unbundling is also more damaging for a company like SGI than for its larger competitors because many large sites, such as Stanford, have group licenses for unbundled products from biggies like Sun, but not from SGI. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127
zombie@voodoo.UUCP (Mike York) (03/26/91)
In article <91083.141920SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu (Scott Le Grand) writes: > ...However, could you perhaps >give us an e-mail or snail-mail address where we SHOULD send >our grievances? Going through sales reps is about as useful as >sticking one's head in a food processor. Time for me to throw in my two bits... Our local sales rep here in Seattle, Todd Sherman, has proven to be extremely helpful on almost a daily basis. He gets quick answers to our questions, he gets followups to our complaints, and he gladly takes orders for new systems ;^). We've found the resources of the local SGI office to be a real asset, something that others may overlook. -- Mike York | "Lord help me, I'm just not Boeing Computer Services | that bright." (206) 865-6577 | zombie@voodoo.boeing.com | -Homer Simpson
Scott Le Grand <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> (03/27/91)
In article <1166@voodoo.UUCP>, zombie@voodoo.UUCP (Mike York) says: > > >Time for me to throw in my two bits... Our local sales rep here in Seattle, >Todd Sherman, has proven to be extremely helpful on almost a daily basis. >He gets quick answers to our questions, he gets followups to our complaints, >and he gladly takes orders for new systems ;^). > >We've found the resources of the local SGI office to be a real asset, >something that others may overlook. You're lucky. Ours was a real twerp. They replaced him, but his constant false promises earned SGI a bad reputation on this campus across many departments that still lingers. I even heard someone just this weekend mutter about the guy who was in a completely different part of the university. On the other hand, our service rep is fantastic and put a lot of time into damage control. We would have probably lynched the sales guy without him... PS, perhaps your corporate status has something to do with how well you are treated. Scott
blbates@AERO36.LARC.NASA.GOV (Brent Bates ViGYAN AAD/TAB) (03/28/91)
Our old sales rep was the pits too. However, now things are vastly improved. SGI also put a new local office here a while back too. So, I don't having any complaints as far as the local people are concerned. They do a great job. Brent L. Bates NASA-Langley Research Center M.S. 361 Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225 Phone:(804) 864-2854 FAX:(804) 864-6792 E-mail: blbates@aero36.larc.nasa.gov or blbates@aero8.larc.nasa.gov
marks@AIVAX.RADC.AF.MIL (David Marks) (03/28/91)
Ditto. Sales was bad; is good. Field service has always been excellent. We are upgrading our system from 70GT->340VGX. I wonder if we'll get Showcase? Dave Marks Rome Laboratory marks@aivax.radc.af.mil
WJP@VM.NRC.CA (Wayne Podaima) (03/29/91)
On Thu, 28 Mar 91 10:49:20 -0500 you said: > Ditto. Sales was bad; is good. Field service has always been excellent. >We are upgrading our system from 70GT->340VGX. I wonder if we'll get Showcase? > Probably; Showcase is shipping with all 4D/25 to /35 upgrades.
kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) (03/29/91)
In article <JIM.91Mar24165704@baroque.Stanford.EDU> jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) writes: Path: sgitokyo!sgihub!dragon!sgi!decwrl!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!baroque.Stanford.EDU!jim From: jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi Date: 24 Mar 91 16:57:04 GMT References: <1991Mar21.201915.23361@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1991Mar22.174054.25110@odin.corp.sgi.com> <91083.141920SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 38 > I too am bothered by the software unbundling that is sweeping (?) the > industry. I'm glad that SGI will include showcase in the IRIX 4.0 > distribution. I wish they would do the same for things such as DWB > (Documenter's Workbench). There are very many IRISes out there that This is not what unbundling means. Unbundling is when a vendor takes some software which was initially all together (one bundle) and breaks it into several offerings. For example, some vendors sell their OS and development systems separately, even though the OS and development system were contained in the same technology licensed from AT&T. DWB and UNIX System V are *separate* products from AT&T and incur separate royalties for each copy distributed (binary sublicense). SGI has not "unbundled" DWB, they have "not bundled" it. The question which arises is should all customers pay for DWB, even if they don't use it. SHould the customers who do not use DWB foot the bill for those who do? Maybe they should? But maybe they shouldn't? What about C++? What about incorporating technologies with even higher royalties. Should customers be forced to pay royalties for products they did not really want? I am not saying either way, but I think it is important to recognize the business relationship that all workstation makers have with technology suppliers, and understand that those relationships will be reflected in their offerings to end users. I also appreciate your point about not having a part that you need included by default in the system. > have commercial and free third-party software installed, but man pages > are not available because there's no nroff, and the sysadmins haven't > installed something free like awf. Custom software packages with > obscure command line options are confusing enough to new users even > with man pages. Unix sans nroff is a big step backwards in user > friendliness. It's just another missing feature that makes many users > flinch when they have to use another flavor of Unix, such as IRIX. In > my experience, such "incompatibilities" are the second most common > reason (behind third-party software availability) that people > recommend other platforms. > > Unbundling is also more damaging for a company like SGI than for its > larger competitors because many large sites, such as Stanford, have > group licenses for unbundled products from biggies like Sun, but not > from SGI. > > Jim Helman > Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 > Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 > (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127 These opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SGI or SGI management.
jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (03/31/91)
If showcase were sold separately, it would be an unbundled (adj., not
bundled) software package, even though SGI never actually unbundled
(vt., to split off) it.
The question which arises is should all customers pay for DWB, even
if they don't use it. SHould the customers who do not use DWB foot
the bill for those who do? Maybe they should? But maybe they
shouldn't?
Not including DWB or at least an "nroff -man" equivalent for man pages
in the Developer's Option is brain damaged. I don't particularly care
whether it's AT&T's fault or not. It basically means that customers
can't integrate many free or commercial third party packages nicely
into IRIX. Most new IRIX users and those coming from BSD systems find
it disorienting enough even with man pages. Because DWB is an
unbundled product, many IRISes around here aren't useful unless you
can find a Sun with similar software to read the man pages on. Pretty
silly.
Also, when a company does sell unbundled software, it would be a big
help if its sales force informed customers' purchases. I don't think
our sales rep ever mentioned DWB. Not that it would have done much
good; most of us are pretty dense BSDers here, and I doubt that it
would have occurred to us that we had any use for DWB. After all, we
don't use the IRISes for any doc prep. (Hopefully, these otherwise
fruitless DWB posting festivals have at least educate some users to
order DWB, but that's really the sales force's job.) Sun's no better
on this count. We don't learn that something has been unbundled (like
Fortran) until we upgrade and paniced users appear.
My point about site licenses also stands. We'll soon have a group
license on Suns for everything from C++ to Common Lisp to SunVision.
It's unlikely that the same will be done for IRISes on campus because
there are so many fewer of them. Since software is a big factor in
hardware purchases, unbundled software puts SGI at a disadvantage.
Jim Helman
Department of Applied Physics Durand 012
Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377
(jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127
P.S. awf, an awk-based "nroff -man" hack by Henry Spencer is available
by anonymous ftp to fresnel.stanford.edu in pub/4D.