Moving from SCO to Suse Linux

[Fairlight]

This public service announcement was brought to you by John Esak:
> 
> Wow! Isn't that nice... you _politely_ disagreeing with _me_. I wonder how
> cold it is in Hell right now. (Chalk up one win for the FP Room... :-)

I'm -always- polite!  *dismay and shock that you would think otherwise!*

Should I dig up the university essay that explains why hell is endothermic?
*snicker*  I love that one.

> Well, I've not really thought about it much, but on the surfadce, this is
> one case where I think I really agree with FP Tech (and just about _every_
> other software supllier out there.)  The simple fact of the matter is there
> is no way for the vendor to know that you are not still using the old
> software on a fully working system. Even if that weren't the crux of the
> issue, just the simple dollars of how the company makes money is critical.

If I decide to take OneGate compiled, can I remind you of that in the
future?  *charming smile*


> This is the whole O/S we are talking about... the car... not the radio... In
> the case of say Microlite BackupEdge... you use it on SCO for two years,
> then buy another server... they are not going to just send you a completely
> new or even upgrade package for less than full price. What in the world
> would be their incentive for doing this? Good will? It's their income
> stream, and they also have no way of knowing you aren't still using their
> product on the other server.  It is a matter of trust I guess. There is none
> anywhere, ever.

Well, for the last statement, I think that's a sad state of affairs.  I'm
nowhere near gullible enough to believe there isn't piracy.  Probably
someone, somewhere probably even has the brass ones to call someplace up
and -ask- them for a second version for another OS entirely, knowing full
well they're going to use continue to use the first as a pirated version.
I wouldn't put it past some people.  But I just don't treat my customers
that way.  I prefer to have trusting relationships.  If I get burned at
some point, they'll never live it down with me.  But until they do, I'm
genearlly pretty easy-going.

As for the first comment, can I inquire as to why you consider filePro or
BackupEdge the whole OS...the car rather than the accessories?  I don't
follow your logic, so I can't even debate it further without clarification.

Incentive...you have goodwill, word of mouth, referrals.  For someone
whose client base is expanded -largely- via such things, it's nothing to
sneeze at for me.  Maybe some of the larger companies can afford to not
give a damn one way or another past the bottom line.  I watch the bottom
line because I have no choice, but overall I want people to have a good
experience, both for the satisfaction, and the opportunity to give others
the same in future, -while- making sure I at least keep a roof over my head.

> Except seemingly at SCO. Should you change servers, or upgarde, you just
> sign on to their site and re-register your licenses with that specific
> reason... no fuss, no muss. It is fantastic, and amazing. Just the way it
> should be. A single, possible reason for this contra-situation is that their
> cpd daemon (copy protect daemon) is going to flog you forever if you run two
> systems on the same network. It isn't much, but it would annoy me.

I heard about that two identical licenses on the same net thing long ago,
in the 3.2.4.2 days.  That would drive me nuts too.  Actually, when -I-
heard it, it was supposedly that they wouldn't talk to each other even over
WAN...something they did to the TCP/IP stack, I thought.  Could have been
FUD, for all I know, but I've heard they had something like that.

But that sounds like a more than reasonable system migration scheme.

> As for FP Tech just giving you a completely different version of the product
> for no or very small dollars... I think they won't do this... in fact, I
> have at one time tried to to this... I never heard from Susan or anyone else
> about this 33% or whatever mentioned by someone in another note. I think
> there is no option, and in this one case, rightfully so. If they don't stay
> in business, we all would suffer.

Assuming piracy is not occurring (and calling them to ask for a different
version is a pretty large tip-off that you're doing -something-, even if
it's legit, so it's not like they're flying entirely blind--how many people
have the guts to blithely do it after alerting someone?), why should it
even impact their revenue stream?  You're basically saying any vendor at
all should be able to make you pay twice for the exact same software that
you will only use on one platform at a time, simply because you changed
platforms?  I can see a price differential charge in addition to a request
handling fee, if there's a gap in pricing between platforms (like iNTEL
vs Sparc, for instance).  But to make them pay a second time for software
they already licensed once, and won't be gaining anything in the product
by simply running it on a different platform...that doesn't strike me as a
legitimate revenue stream so much as it does legalised extortion.  You can
do it, but people are -not- going to be happy about it.

That's a -huge- disincentive for anyone to migrate away from M$ to
any other platform, or even from linux to FBSD or what-have-you.  I'd
think more than once about re-upping for a product like that in the
next development cycle if a vendor was pulling that, unless the cost of
redeployment was simply too high to consider it.

Before anyone gets uptight, I'm not even citing fP-Tech specifically, I'm
saying I disagree with the general principle of -any- vendor doing it.

Sure, I'd love to have someone call me and say they moved, say...OneGate
from one server to another and they screwed up their configuration, can
I help them fix whatever it is they did wrong in restoring their config
heirarchy (which would most likely be permissions-related and take 2
minutes to fix, in this case), and then be able to say, "Wait a tick,
you moved from SCO to linux?  Hate to tell you, but it'll not only be a
charge for fixing the configuration, but it'll -also- be another $495
for switching platforms, even though I can plainly see that it's not
in use on the other system."  And believe me, if I wanted to, I could
take OneGate entirely compiled (and will if I have to, for special-needs
cases), so we could take the broadly-available interpreter argument out of
the mix entirely.  I don't do it because it's flat-out more flexible for
installation and configuration purposes if I don't.  I -could- make it more
rigid, but I never liked the thought of mandating specific file locations,
etc.

Anyway, I'd love the extra income, but that doesn't seem -at all- fair to
them, assuming that scenario.  And exactly how accessible does that make a
company seem if they get penalised for contacting support, simply because
they switched platforms?

Maybe I'm naive, or just idealistic, and I still haven't gotten to the
point that I can play that kind of ball game.  I kind of hope I never do.
I'd rather be poor and have my ideals in-tact, even if they're a bit
short-sighted.  Some people may not think so, but I generally like to be A
Relatively Nice Guy[tm].

Keeping in mind of course that they're -my- ideals.  I realise it's
entirely a subjective topic here.  I'm not -forcing- my ideals on anyone,
I'm simply explaining why I think it's wrong, and I would urge people to
consider very carefully what they're doing.  I think it's more likely to
harm a vendor than help them, personally.  You can gain short-term revenue,
but unless you're entirely unexpendable, you might lose in the long-term
game.  And one thing I've learned over the years is that nothing/nobody is
truly unexpendable, no matter how good it/they is/are.  You can be the best
around, and someone can find an excuse to dump you anyway.  I've seen it
happen to really awesome people in their chosen fields, sadly.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html