geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) (05/23/91)
I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. Geoffrey S. Knauth E-Mail: geoff@bos.camex.com Camex / DuPont Imaging Systems Inc. VoiceMail: (617) 426-7550 x451 75 Kneeland Street Reception: (617) 426-3577 Boston, Massachusetts 02111 --standard disclaimers--
rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) (05/23/91)
In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that >Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this >is disinformation. I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. The president then informed me that he was currently putting together a deal himself to get SS finances back in order. For various reasons I asked how much to purchase the company. $1,000,000.00 for 50% interest with the other half controlled by the employees (more on this in a second). Also, $50,000.00 will by a 2.5% interest in the company, up to a maximum of 15% or $250,000.00. If SS folds the company will sell its customer list to someone who will then presumably provide support and upgrades. The Objective-C trademark, nor the SS IC-Pak library are for sale or license. It is ``the only thing [they] have.''. (Personal note: This I think is the reason why SS is not doing as well as it could. One does not promote a tool and expect millions of dollars to be invested in it without having a second source. I wonder really if SS is suprised at their situtation?). Ok, so those were facts as I understood them. Here are my impressions. This is entirely subjective, and should be dismissed as frivolous hearsay for serious conversation. First, the $1Meg seems pie in the sky to me. It is too even, and I think that it was simply thrown out to me. Secondly, towards the latter part of my conversation with the president, I asked who would have controlling interest, and quickly said "Oh yes, the employees.". He responded by indicating that the employees would control 40% of the company. See the note above about how employees would own 50% of the company. This might have been a simple mistake, but my impression was and is that this is being played by the seat of the pants. Finally it seems clear to me that the buisness folks at SS have no concept of how to market a language. Ridiculous license restrictions, unwillingness to even license their trademark, etc. I've been fighting very hard at work for Objective-C (C++ is the contender). Technically I was winning hands down. This morning after my conversation I informed my boss that we would be dropping Objective-C as a possible development language. I suspect that this scene will be repeated in many places. This, sirs, is a genuine shame. With regard to IBM dropping NeXTStep I do not know for certain. I offer this information however. The president of SS is placing great hopes for IBM, and when I saw Steve Jobs speak he indicated (very indirectly) that NeXTStep and IBM were in the offing. SS stands to gain $500,000.00 if the IBM deal goes through. At the previous burn rates ($10,000,000.00 in seven years) this translates into 4 months of operation. >Geoffrey S. Knauth E-Mail: geoff@bos.camex.com >Camex / DuPont Imaging Systems Inc. VoiceMail: (617) 426-7550 x451 >75 Kneeland Street Reception: (617) 426-3577 >Boston, Massachusetts 02111 --standard disclaimers-- ---Rick
izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >>I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that >>Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this >>is disinformation. > >I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the phone >(not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' and that >``very(?) few employees were left.''. The president then informed me I am a bit confused. How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT users? What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. Izumi Ohzawa [ $@Bg_78^=;(J ] USMail: University of California, 360 Minor Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-6440 Fax: (415) 642-3323 Internet: izumi@violet.berkeley.edu NeXTmail: izumi@pinoko.berkeley.edu
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) (05/23/91)
Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost (you could call these junk bonds, if you like)? I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!! And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company. How about it, Stepstone? Objective-C is great and I have my checkbook ready! I'll put my money where my USENET-mouth is... -- Chuck Herrick campus consultant at Texas A&M University for NeXT Computer, Inc -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant.
mrs@ms.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May23.075820.983@agate.berkeley.edu> izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> > rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >>In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >>> I've been hearing ugly rumors that [...] Stepstone [...] >>> [is] in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. >> >> I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >> financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the >> phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' >> and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. [...] > > I am a bit confused. > > How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT > users? > > What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? > > I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology > is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. I love free market economies. Simply put, Stepstone was pulling in to much money, not really providing the bang for the buck. NeXT knew this (or found it out) decided to cut cost, knew they could do better than to continue to give any more money to Stepstone. So they extened the GNU compiler (for which they don't have to give a red cent to anyone if they don't want to), and came up with a more cost effective solution for their needs. They relied on Stepstone in the past, now they are ``free'' (pardon the pun). I think everyone should drop their current compiler vendor, take half the money, and give it to a company like cygnus or some other support organization that supports a un-encumbered compiler. I think in the long run, this will prove to be a win. A win for everybody involved. Take a look at what it has done for NeXT, no more money to Stepstone, a C++ compiler for free, and others will do some bug fixing, bug reporting, documentation, maintainance, and upgrading, as well as things like porting, so that maybe if they choose to switch to (name almost ANY popular processor) in the future, not a whole lot of real work needs to be done. (The above are optionions of mine, I do not claim ANY of the above as fact. I would like to see e-mail if you followup to this.) -- If I can get mail to you via a legally registered fully qualified domain name, you could be on Saturn for all I care. -- quote by Bob Sutterfield <bob@MorningStar.Com>
rogers@carol.math.binghamton.edu (John Rogers) (06/07/91)
In article <1991May31.065729.26949@csun.edu> mrs@ms.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) writes: >In article <1991May23.075820.983@agate.berkeley.edu> izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >>In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> >> rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >>>In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: > >>>> I've been hearing ugly rumors that [...] Stepstone [...] >>>> [is] in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. >>> >>> I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >>> financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the >>> phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' >>> and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. [...] >> >> I am a bit confused. >> >> How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT >> users? >> >> What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? >> >> I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology >> is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. > >I love free market economies. Simply put, Stepstone was pulling in to >much money, not really providing the bang for the buck. NeXT knew >this (or found it out) decided to cut cost, knew they could do better >than to continue to give any more money to Stepstone. So they extened >the GNU compiler (for which they don't have to give a red cent to >anyone if they don't want to), and came up with a more cost effective >solution for their needs. They relied on Stepstone in the past, now >they are ``free'' (pardon the pun). So, is there any public (electronic) access to that compiler (e.g. ftp sites, postings to appropriate comp.sources.whatever, etc.)? I would appreciate the response very much. Thanks, netters! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /// | The Blue Wizard (John Rogers) /// Only Amiga | rogers@marge.math.binghamton.edu \\\ /// gives you a | (Don't toucha my wand or I will breaka ya!) \\\/// creative edge | #include <std.disclaimers> \XX/ | cat flames >/dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (06/08/91)
John Rogers writes: [.. insert mention of GNU Objective-C ...] So, is there any public (electronic) access to that compiler (e.g. ftp sites, postings to appropriate comp.sources.whatever, etc.)? I would appreciate the response very much. Thanks, netters! GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY near future, but for now, the NeXT version of GNU C v1.39 that has Objective-C extensions (and the gdb debugger to support it) are available from NeXT for a 'distribution fee', which is pretty small (under $100 I think for the entire distribution of GNU software with NeXT modifications). You can reach NeXT at +1 800 848 NeXT. Hope this helps. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
mycroft@kropotki.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) (06/08/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91Jun7165814@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes:
GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about
run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY
near future, but for now, the NeXT version of GNU C v1.39 that has
Objective-C extensions (and the gdb debugger to support it) are
available from NeXT for a 'distribution fee', which is pretty small
(under $100 I think for the entire distribution of GNU software with
NeXT modifications). You can reach NeXT at +1 800 848 NeXT.
GCC 2.0 will, of course, have an Objective-C runtime library, written
(I'm told) by Cygnus Support.
BTW, under Release 1.0 of the NeXT software, the GNU sources were made
public, and put on several FTP sites. Anyone with the current GNU
sources (with NeXT's modifications) may legally make them available by
any means he/she wishes. That's part of the GPL.
So, if anyone has the Release 2.0 GNU sources, how about it? B-)mcintyre@cs.rpi.edu (David McIntyre) (06/14/91)
Charles Hannum writes: >Chris Petrilli writes: > > GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about > run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY > near future, but for now..... > >GCC 2.0 will, of course, have an Objective-C runtime library, written >(I'm told) by Cygnus Support. > Does anyone know a rough release date for this? I'm really anxious to try it out and see how it works. I am about to start a very large Objective-C project, and I'd like to make an informed compiler decision. -Dave -- Dave "mr question" McIntyre +-----+ "....say you're thinking about a plate mcintyre@turing.cs.rpi.edu | ? | of shrimp.....and someone says to office : 518-276-8633 +-----+ you 'plate,' or 'shrimp'......"