NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/database/6741

Text File | 1992-09-15 | 3.5 KB | 62 lines

Newsgroups: comp.databases
Path: sparky!uunet!portal!combdyn!lawrence
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen)
Subject: Re: HELP! db_Vista needed!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Combustion Dynamics Ltd.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:10:23 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>Raima is presently in the mode of getting their developers to sign a new
>license agreement. It basically attempts to qualify what is what as far as
>platforms and operating systems go. I do not agree with their view of life
>that SCO UNIX, for example, would be different from the Dell SysV 4.x version
>of UNIX. There is binary compatibility there and both run on the same hardware
>base. I would have no problem paying an additional fee if we were to port to
>HP/UNIX on HP hardware but the Intel world is designed to be the most open of
>all worlds and that is why we all tend to gravitate to it. I'm not about to
>assist anyone in attempting to differentiate one Intel box from another just
>so that the software vendor can make more money.
>
>Bottom line to your question. If the manufacturer of the application pays for
>the new development license (IE stays legal), and you then purchase his
>application, you have nothing to do with Raima and owe them no money
>whatsoever. My clients don't even know who or what Raima is. You would be in
>the same boat. It would be up to your vendor/developer to worry about these
>things.
>
Our company hasn't signed a license agreement yet, we're still hashing it out
with Raima.  Two years ago we had in writing that we could port any application
developed using db_Vista to any UNIX platform.  This is important since
our main client at the time was National Defense, and they require any
application they get to run on all their machines.

Another problem is that the machines we do development on are purchased
under contract.  We tend not to know what UNIX box we'll be developing on
each year.  It started out Xenix/386, then Interactive UNIX on a 386,
then a 486....then up until the last moment we thought it was going to be SGI,
but suddenly it was HP.  Then we there are Motorola's.  DRE has Suns, Convex,
and many other UNIX systems....I have no idea what the Americans or the
British are using for UNIX systems, but if they buy our software they'll
want it to run on their machine....as opposed to having to buy an Interactive
Unix BOX....(this machine).

Of course with all the bugs and the fact we paid two years support, and
all we got was an update that didn't fix any of our problems.  Lame support
(oh its a bug, we'll fix it in the next release...after the next release...
oh its a limitation, you'll have to work around it).....

They also changed our license on us....we started out with a One machine,
Two Developer License....then we went to Two machines with Two Developers
per machine.  Their new license agreement says one developer per machine now.
Suddenly two people in the company aren't allowed to develop with RDM???

--
                                __
 :    _        _  _     _  _   :        _     Combustion Dynamics Ltd.
 :   :_: :   ::_::_ :\::  :_   :   :_: :_ :\: [phone]
 :__ : : :/:/ : \:_ : ::_ :_   :__ : : :_ : : [phone] FAX
 EMAIL: [e-mail] || [e-mail]