feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (02/15/89)
There has been a lot of discussion about the source issue and I am glad -- I instigated the most recent flurry a few weeks back. It's a shame that the discussion has degraded to name calling. In a perfect world, no one would need source, but having source wouldn't be a problem, either. In order for us to maintain and support a workstation as complex as the NeXT in our environment, we need source (I gave arguments in a previous posting). It is NeXTs right to disagree and our right to not purchase NeXTs. The big problem -- bigger than the s-word -- is NeXTs seeming inability to provide timely, decisive responses to our questions and comments. NeXT has been asking for comments since day one, providing warm fuzzies at every turn. What they haven't provided are answers. I have been to both the developer and support camps. I have heard about some of the changes coming in 0.9 and 1.0, but not in any manner that could be considered official -- not in a manner that could be used to make decisions. I am now forced to sit and wait -- holding my breath -- and must tell others on my campus to do the same. This lack of positive feedback is very frustrating. At the start I was excited by the prospect of fighting for what I wanted in the NeXT, now I am getting tired. I can only perform a monologue for so long, no matter how enthusiastic the audience (``Funny, Mark -- you seem to be able to rant and rave for hours at a time''). At the support camp that I attended last week, I found that many others shared the same NeXT concerns that I and others at my campus have. NeXT has pushed support onto the campuses, yet the level of information that we have received so far is not much more than what any other NeXT user with some UNIX experience has. People are asking me the same questions about NeXT that they would ask full-time, paid Apple, IBM, DEC, Sun, ... campus reps. It's just a guess, but I bet that these other reps are better informed. NeXT: Tell us what you are going to do! Make a decision on the s-word. You have seen the arguments and you should have known about our requirements from the start -- we are your target market! Arrrggghhh! Mark
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (02/17/89)
In article <4526@umd5.umd.edu>, feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) says: > >NeXT: Tell us what you are going to do! Make a decision on the s-word. >You have seen the arguments and you should have known about our requirements >from the start -- we are your target market! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who is? Do you think that Computer Scientists who want to experiment with changes to the operating system are the target market? I think small to medium groups of co-workers with NON-COMPUTER SCIENCE work to do are the target market, and they don't ask for source. Small groups of co-workers naturally includes the faculty in the Spanish Department, Journalism dept, and so on. It even includes CS faculty. Eventually, if all goes well, those small groups will include groups in industry and commerce. They won't want the source, either. Please---reasonable folk can differ on this topic. No flames. ME? I think NeXT is doing OK. lee
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.acs.washington.edu (Mark Crispin) (02/18/89)
In article <71925UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >Do you think that Computer Scientists who want to experiment with >changes to the operating system are the target market? Your point is valid. Small organizations, particularly those that use only NeXT computers, probably are not interested in sources and are wondering what all the shouting is about. It isn't coming from Computer Scientists, who tend to be disinterested in experimenting with changes to commercial operating systems. It isn't coming from wild-eyed hackers either (in spite of the tone of some of the messages on this topic!). Most of these people are individuals responsible for maintaining a computing environment which includes, but is not limited to, NeXT machines. Often, they are in a central organization responsible for providing system support to "the Spanish Department, Journalism Department, etc." They have to fit NeXT machines in with all the other machines; possibly to the point of having binaries from the same set of sources of a particular set of programs run on all machines. It's a difficult job, since nearly every vendor has its own customizations to Unix, and it's much harder if sources are unavailable. Generally, they are less interested in local customizations than they are in making all the different vendor's customizations work together. In other words, even though the ability to modify system software via sources may reduce homogenity between NeXT systems at different organizations, it may increase homogenity between computers within a large organization! I hope this helps you understand the predicament. Please excuse the (at times) strongly expressed opinions; people get this way when faced with obstacles that make their job tougher.
feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (02/21/89)
In article <71925UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >In article <4526@umd5.umd.edu>, feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) says: >> >>NeXT: Tell us what you are going to do! Make a decision on the s-word. >>You have seen the arguments and you should have known about our requirements >>from the start -- we are your target market! >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Who is? Do you think that Computer Scientists who want to experiment with >changes to the operating system are the target market? I think small to >medium groups of co-workers with NON-COMPUTER SCIENCE work to do are >the target market, and they don't ask for source. No, I don't think that computer scientists are the target market. Perhaps you (and others) missed my original posting(s) on the s-word (It pains me to type the word). The organization for which I work, the Computer Science Center, provides computing and networking services to the campus. We provide technical assitance to our users and to other departments that maintain their own computers. We provide services -- like a library -- to help forward the educational goals of the university. Our computing environment is large, heterogeneous, and interwoven. In order to make use of a system in our environment, it is sometimes necesary for us to make changes at the operating system level. We do not experiment with or make changes to the operating system gratuitously. We don't paritcularly want to change OS software, but we have to to make all of these vendors' computers play together nicely in a hostile enviromnet. > >Small groups of co-workers naturally includes the faculty in the Spanish >Department, Journalism dept, and so on. It even includes CS faculty. >Eventually, if all goes well, those small groups will include groups >in industry and commerce. They won't want the source, either. While most departments on campus neither have nor want source, they are glad that we do. Having source allows us to help these people solve their problems. For the <insert favorite department here> professor with a single computer on his desk that he and perhaps a grad student use, source means nothing. It is very important to him that he is able to use network services to set his clock, print files, and access other computers. We need source to provide these services to him and hundreds, even thousands of other networked workstations. If this profesor is going to write educational software for the NeXT, he is going to want to know that NeXTs are going to be available in student workstation rooms. Well, guess who runs the student workstation rooms? It is easy to not want source for a single workstation. It is impossible to not need source for hundreds of networked workstations. Please believe me, we've had some experience with this. And please remember, when I say ``workstation'', I mean a multi-tasking, network-integrated, is-slices-and-dices workstation. A VAXstation is a workstation. A PC is not. A Sun is a workstation. A Mac is not. > >Please---reasonable folk can differ on this topic. No flames. ME? I think >NeXT is doing OK. > > lee It is your right to say that you don't want source. Most individuals won't want source. But please, don't argue that I shouldn't be allowed to license source. This is an argument between the people who want source and NeXT. It should not particularly interest those who do not want source. Source is almost never the default. Obtaining source involves paying additional fees and signing away the lives of all offspring, past, present, and future. We pay our dues to AT&T. We pay our dues to DEC. We are willing to pay our dues to NeXT. I am still of the opinion that NeXT should have had a source policy before 0.8 hit the streets. Mark
tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) (02/25/89)
>In article <4526@umd5.umd.edu>, feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) says: >> >>NeXT: Tell us what you are going to do! Make a decision on the s-word. >>You have seen the arguments and you should have known about our requirements >>from the start -- we are your target market! >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmn... Last time I checked, Steve Jobs said that College Students and Institutions for higher education were NeXT's "target market." And as most students are going to use NeXTSTEP and minimal Standardized C, I really don't see what all of this fuss is about NeXTSTEP Source code. NeXT, if they are at all the the last company that Steve Jobs founded, WILL NOT shaft the users of his machine. Any signifigant system changes will be available in the monthly NeXT magizine that NeXT will be sending to each institution who picks up their systems. Refer to the INSTITUTE contract (which I am currently holding) for details... Richard G. Brewer +----------------------------+--------------+--------------------------+ | Richard G. Brewer (TRON) | Worcester | rbrewer@wpi.bitnet | | WPI Box 149 | Polytechnic | tron@wpi.wpi.edu | | 100 Institute Rd. | Institute +--------------------------+ | Worcester, Ma 01609-2280 +--------------+ "Power through better | | (508) 792-3231 | VaNdaLs Sack | design and engineering" | +----------------------------+--------------+--------------------------+