bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (10/18/88)
In article <17780@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) writes: > - Interchange/backup media. Apparently the magneto-optical drive is > removable, but only one is provided. Does this mean that one > is supposed to make backups by swapping two disks back and > forth, perhaps 40 or 50 times? Or is a second drive > essentially mandatory? How much does a second drive cost? Is > one available? Remember that this is being sold into a University environment, not the home market. Right now, because they can't make enough to satisfy all the demand, it's only being shipped to selected departments in selected institutions that can really make it shine (not an unreasonable strategy!). All such departments are already fairly well along in the workstation world, and have NFS server capacity already in place. Those servers also have tape drives (1/2" or 8mm or whatever) in use as mass backup devices. Local NeXT disks can be backed up with standard BSD rdump to some central tape drive. The optical drive is intended to be used similarly to the way students use floppies right now: carry your work into a public lab and start working on any machine. Alternatively, one could set up a NeXT-only cluster, with one machine configured with lots of big fast disks on the E-SCSI port. Then the optical drive could be a backup medium for the central server files. Similarly for a standalone machine: I wouldn't want to run Mach from the optical drive, though it could be done. If a machine must run remotely from a server environment (like in my study at home - I only wish! :-), it should be configured with a conventional Winchester disk as its primary mass storage, and the optical drive used for software installation, backups, and media portability. -=- Zippy sez, --Bob Look into my eyes and try to forget that you have a Macy's charge card!
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (10/20/88)
(Note that followups are directed to comp.sys.next) In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) writes: >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... I'm not an eastern mystic, but there seem to be several realities involved here. >Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his >machine (ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant >and saying "you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. Failure to narrow one's focus in order to accomplish a goal is a big, big mistake. Many companies, larger ones that NeXT (160!) have gone under while trying to be everything to everyone. Kudos to one who will recognize the limitations of size and time during a start-up phase. His statement, if flip, was at least realistic. >If Next really expects we, the developers and software publishers, to >come out with software for this beast, they had BETTER give us more >of a market than the University crowd! Many Universities are happy using free software, and some may be happy not to use your software. A lot of interesting work is done at Universities and shared freely with the rest of the community. That's the nature of academia. >The university market represents too little money to gain our full >support. You make your market target decisions, and let others make theirs. The collection of bundled (and unbundled) software that's available for the NeXT cube is truly impressive, but wouldn't really interest a real estate developer. It's targeted at the academic market. >Also -- how about GNU? Since GNU C is part of the package, can I >sell my product that I compile using this compiler? Of course. Read the GNU General Public License if you have questions. >Or must I follow the GNU General license with regards to my product >if compiled using that compiler, essentially reducing the value of >the product to zero? If the second case holds true (ie: you can't >really resell compiled binaries) This issue gets rehashed frequently on the GNU newsgroups. If you read the License, you'll note that FSF only copyrights its work, and it certainly couldn't copyright yours. >If Jobs wants this machine to succeed, he _must_ market to the >general consumer. We'll all watch and see, won't we? >You can bet that Sun and DEC are working on something to compete with >the NEXT box -- and that you and I will be able to buy that product. You'll be able to buy a NeXT box sometime, when they have production capacity left over from serving their primary focus design market. I'm looking forward to Sun's and DEC's (and HP's and IBM's and ...) reply to this box. The competition will be fun! -=- Zippy sez, --Bob Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/20/88)
In article <25146@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>Or must I follow the GNU General license with regards to my product >>if compiled using that compiler, essentially reducing the value of >>the product to zero? If the second case holds true (ie: you can't >>really resell compiled binaries) > >This issue gets rehashed frequently on the GNU newsgroups. If you >read the License, you'll note that FSF only copyrights its work, and >it certainly couldn't copyright yours. True it couldn't copyright mine, BUT the license specifically REQUIRES to ship the "sources" of the product compiled with GNU-C. While this might be OK for a university project, I can see no company doing that. As I understand it, NO software bundled with the Next box has been built with GNU-C, but instead with Stepstone Objective-C. Do I get the source of those bundled programs? I doubt that. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) (10/21/88)
In article <12935@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >True it couldn't copyright mine, BUT the license specifically REQUIRES >to ship the "sources" of the product compiled with GNU-C. I just read the file COPYING from the GNU CC distribution with the title "GNU CC GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (Clarified 11 Feb 1988)" and don't see anything of that sort in it. The closest it comes is source availability requirements for "GNU CC (or a portion or derivative of it..." I don't think output of a compiler is considered a "derivative" of the compiler. I would bet they are referring to hacking parts of GCC into your own code. -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (10/22/88)
In article <12935@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >True it couldn't copyright mine, BUT the license specifically >REQUIRES to ship the "sources" of the product compiled with GNU-C. Again, this issue gets rehashed regularly on the gnu.all newsgroups. Please read the GNU CC General Public License, which only restricts you in how you handle FSF's code. It makes no attempt to constrain you regarding your own work. If you'd like a copy of that License, please drop me (or FSF) a line. -=- Zippy sez, --Bob My EARS are GONE!!
bzs@xenna (Barry Shein) (10/23/88)
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... > >Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his machine >(ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant and saying >"you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. My guesses are that: A) The system is tailored to a specific form of University usage more than meets the eye (eg. the only real purpose of the removeable optical media is to be able to walk your world around campus and use any machine, for the rest of us we'd find the disk inadequate in speed etc as we wouldn't reap the benefits.) B) He's more or less sold all the machines he expects to be able to manufacture in the next year or two to commitments from Universities, so it's a kind of sour grapes comment from him. C) (More Cynical) He wants to tell you *you* can't have one, people fall for that kind of stuff. D) He's projected a marketing and support organization that can only adequately deal with University environments, such as having them provide their own service etc. Companies might be able to do this, but he may have found they are not willing to do this and would rather buy machines with full, external support. Note that this may not be a flippant decision, one of the hardest things about getting into the computer manufacturing business is figuring out, when you're small and new, how the heck to service that one machine in ColdWater Flats and not lose your shirt on such systems. This is particularly difficult with small, inexpensive systems where the margin is tiny. It could require one full-time person sitting in ole ColdWater waiting for a phone call, or flying people in when there's a problem. How could you do that for less than, say, $100K in equipment? Again, return to factory may be unacceptable in such situations. I dunno, you might be right, he might be wrong, but I think those reasons above, if true, (one more comma in this sentence and...) could belie some motivations which are understandable. (whew!) -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (10/25/88)
In article <25427@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: |In article <12935@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: |>True it couldn't copyright mine, BUT the license specifically |>REQUIRES to ship the "sources" of the product compiled with GNU-C. | |Again, this issue gets rehashed regularly on the gnu.all newsgroups. |Please read the GNU CC General Public License, | which only restricts |you in how you handle FSF's code. It makes no attempt to constrain |you regarding your own work. This sentence and a half is not very clear. 1) if you compile a program, with or without GCC, that has any GNU source merged with it, including linking in any GNU library object code, the entire program is covered by the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE. If you don't like this, find other non-GNU code to use. 2) if you compile a program with GCC that has no GNU source code in it, you can legally do what you wish with it. The GNU Project has a preference that its tools only be used to produce programs whose source code is freely redistributable, but the Project can't legally turn that preference into a legal requirement. |If you'd like a copy of that License, please drop me (or FSF) a line. gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu is the FSF place to ask. enjoy -len PS: discussion of this, now that the facts are straight, isn't appropriate to this newsgroup, please take it elsewhere.
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (10/26/88)
>1) if you compile a program, with or without GCC, that has any GNU >source merged with it, including linking in any GNU library object >code, the entire program is covered by the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE. If you >don't like this, find other non-GNU code to use. Hmm, what if I compile a program I don't own the rights to distribute source to, such as recompiling a utility off of the SysV tape? I am certainly licensed (by AT&T) to redistribute the binary to sublicensees but the sources require the recipient to have his/her/its own AT&T source license? Just being difficult...and in the wrong newsgroup... -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
mbkennel@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Matthew B. Kennel) (10/26/88)
>>1) if you compile a program, with or without GCC, that has any GNU >>source merged with it, including linking in any GNU library object !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>code, the entire program is covered by the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE. If you >>don't like this, find other non-GNU code to use. If this is indeed true, and if the GNU C compiler is the primary compiler for the NeXT system, this seems to mean that in effect, _no_ software developed on the NeXT computer may be sold, or even given away without source! Is this really true? If so, I sure hope that Jobs has either written a compatible library or is planning on getting another compiler (sniff) Real Soon Now... Can we have a FSF expert comment? Matt K mbkennel@phoenix.princeton.edu
swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson) (10/26/88)
>>>1) if you compile a program, with or without GCC, that has any GNU >>>source merged with it, including linking in any GNU library object > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>code, the entire program is covered by the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE. If you >>>don't like this, find other non-GNU code to use. > >If this is indeed true, and if the GNU C compiler is the primary >compiler for the NeXT system, this seems to mean that in effect, >_no_ software developed on the NeXT computer may be sold, or even given >away without source! > >Is this really true? If so, I sure hope that Jobs has either written >a compatible library or is planning on getting another compiler (sniff) >Real Soon Now... > >Can we have a FSF expert comment? (I'm not an expert on anything and don't represent anyone but myself.) As an example of GCC, when it is used on a Sun GCC produces assembly code which is (by default) assembled by the native assembler and linked with the native linker. What is linked with the output of the assembler is the native /lib/crt0.o, the native libc.a, and /usr/local/lib/gcc-gnulib. The gnulib file appears to be produced from a 321 line long C file that I assume could easily be replaced by a vendor, NeXT in this case. If NeXT uses Mach then (as I understand it) libc.a and crt0.o are either from Mach or from 4.3BSD. Just because GCC may be the compiler for the NeXT box does not mean that is also the source of libraries. -- Scott Wilson arpa: swilson@sun.com Sun Microsystems uucp: ...!sun!swilson Mt. View, CA
jc@heart-of-gold (John M Chambers) (11/03/88)
In article <25146@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > (Note that followups are directed to comp.sys.next) > > In article <[9.5]karl@ddsw1.alt.next> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) writes: > >With regards to Next machines only being available to colleges: > > > >I hope Jobs comes around to reality soon... > > >Failing to serve a major market segment that wants to purchase his > >machine (ie: you and I, folks) is a big, big mistake. Being arrogant > >and saying "you want one, go to college!" is not the answer. > > Failure to narrow one's focus in order to accomplish a goal is a big, > big mistake. Many companies, larger ones that NeXT (160!) have gone > under while trying to be everything to everyone. Kudos to one who > will recognize the limitations of size and time during a start-up > phase. His statement, if flip, was at least realistic. Yeah, but it may not even be that complicated. I'd like to remind y'all that most of use are very familiar with a similar story. For the first decade of its existence, Unix was basically distributed (at a very low price) to universities, and nobody (at ATT or elsewhere) even tried to build a market. After a few years, those universities started turning out a crop of graduates who, when put to work on the various commercial systems, all said things like "What's this garbage? Why don't you get a GOOD system instead of ______?" [Fill in the blank yourself.] What was a good system? Why, Unix, of course. Not that is't perfect, but it was far ahead of things like OS/MVS that the industry was pushing, if you wanted to do anything other than run a few canned packages from the vendor. The first few new hires that said this could be dismissed as starry-eyed academic idealists. But when corporate manages (at ATT and elsewhere) noticed that they ALL acted this way, well, the news slowly got through thick corporate skulls that maybe this was worth investigating, and that maybe, just maybe, OS/MVS wasn't the way God intended computers to run. With BSD, it happened again. Despite all of ATT's marketing power, BSD-based systems are doing very well against Sys/V, and as usual it's taking the corporate world (at ATT and elsewhere) a very long time to stop dismissing it as the ravings of a bunch of wierd student types. Events like Sun becoming a billion-a-year company eventually get the attention of corporate marketing types, but they aren't about to do things like BSD until someone else develops the market. Personally, I suspect that Steve Jobs is gambling on being able to pull off the same trick. Imagine 5 years from now, you are hiring new graduates to work on your new ______ workstations, and the new hires are all saying things like: "You call this turkey a workstation? For half the price, you could have bought a NeXT and you'd be getting some work done instead of beating your head against the wall trying to make the kludgey thing work." The first two or three you will dismiss as silly academic types that don't understand the Real World, but when the ALL act that way, well, maybe, just maybe you'll start to get the idea. Meanwhile, the corporate Unix developers (at ATT/Sun and elsewhere) are busy making their Unix into something that competes with OS/MVS... -- From: John Chambers <mitre-bedford.arpa!heart-of-gold!jc> From ...!linus!!heart-of-gold!jc (John Chambers) Phone 617/217-7780 [Send flames; they keep it cool in this lab :-]