Dave Bakhash wrote in topic "CL and telephony -- Portus CTI products"
...many most positive things about Xanalys and LispWorks in conjunction
with a real-life professional-business-project.
Dave, thank you for your very interesting report.
The following are general remarks that of course interest only
low-budget or no-budget developers, students, players and so on.
Only?
Xanalys - time to act!
One negative thing if found in Xanalys LispWorks is the free
downloadable "Personal Edition".
Free Personal Edition - negative?
There is a time-limit. After 4 hours a warning, one hour later an the
programm exits (of course you can start the program again then).
I don't know if the "promise":
> You are approaching the time-limit for the Personal Edition of
> LispWorks. You have one hour remaining at the end of which this
> image will terminate without further warning. If you choose to
> continue now you are advised to save your work at regular
> intervals.
Is kept. I mean if the program exits without warning and (as the last
sentence implies) without saving.
Why i don't know? I use mostly the "Allegro Trial Edition" from Franz,
which has a more liberate licence.
Renewing licence every 2 months via a tools (don't tried yet, i've 37
days remaining).
When i see the message of LispWorks, something happens to me.
I mean imagine that you are deeply captured in coding, trying,
analyzing, interaction which this 'stubbern' LISP-core, that does not do
what you want it to do. And then...
...zzzzt!!!: "you are approaching the time-limit..."
Friendly as analytical minds are while captured by a problem, you shout
out (or think out, or type out) some few things to the 'cheers' of the
responsibles.
And of course you don't save. And the one remaining hour 'shrinks' to
five minutes...
...Wham!!! I do no what you do this point... a few typings before
solving then problem.
This is not a friendly 'Personal Edition'. And it raises negative
feelings. The part "...image will terminate..." gets an double meaning.
Please think about it.
And look at Smalltalk:
Major vendors which provide full feautured "Non-Commercial" versions - free!
"Take it and make what you wan't - execpt cash. When you make cash, you
have to pay us".
Excellent strategy. Increasing market-share. Increasing image (not
terminating it).
Professional customers will buy anyway. The Software and the
service-packages, too.
Xanalys - time to act!
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
> Why i don't know? I use mostly the "Allegro Trial Edition" from Franz,
> which has a more liberate licence.
>
> Renewing licence every 2 months via a tools (don't tried yet, i've 37
> days remaining).
>
> When i see the message of LispWorks, something happens to me.
>
> I mean imagine that you are deeply captured in coding, trying,
> analyzing, interaction which this 'stubbern' LISP-core, that does not
> do what you want it to do. And then...
>
> ...zzzzt!!!: "you are approaching the time-limit..."
>
> Friendly as analytical minds are while captured by a problem, you
> shout out (or think out, or type out) some few things to the 'cheers'
> of the responsibles.
>
> And of course you don't save. And the one remaining hour 'shrinks' to
> five minutes...
>
> ...Wham!!! I do no what you do this point... a few typings before
> solving then problem.
>
> This is not a friendly 'Personal Edition'. And it raises negative
> feelings. The part "...image will terminate..." gets an double
> meaning. Please think about it.
>
Oh for pity's sake. Its freely usable so you can evaluate it. If you
want to do serious work, then buy the package. Why in the world
should Xanalys provide you a free & unlimited use tool? If you can't
afford it, then perhaps you should contact Xanalys and try to get a
discounted version. If you can afford it, but somehow think that
buying the tools you're planning on seriously using & learning isn't
important then you are not being fair to Xanalys. If you really don't
want to buy it, then switch to CLISP or CMUCL. If its just the words
that Lispwork prints before it exits that bother you, why is that
Xanalys's problem?
Personally, I think you should be thanking Xanalys for the freely
available demo.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Oh for pity's sake. Its freely usable so you can evaluate it. If you
> want to do serious work, then buy the package. Why in the world
> should Xanalys provide you a free & unlimited use tool? If you can't
> afford it, then perhaps you should contact Xanalys and try to get a
> discounted version. If you can afford it, but somehow think that
> buying the tools you're planning on seriously using & learning isn't
> important then you are not being fair to Xanalys. If you really don't
> want to buy it, then switch to CLISP or CMUCL. If its just the words
> that Lispwork prints before it exits that bother you, why is that
> Xanalys's problem?
>
> Personally, I think you should be thanking Xanalys for the freely
> available demo.
>
> Gregm
i don't care about me.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> > Personally, I think you should be thanking Xanalys for the freely
> > available demo.
> > Gregm
>
> i don't care about me.
Hmm. ilias sometimes bears an striking resemblance to Eliza.
Is he for real?
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
> > > Personally, I think you should be thanking Xanalys for the freely
> > > available demo.
> > > Gregm
> >
> > i don't care about me.
>
> Hmm. ilias sometimes bears an striking resemblance to Eliza.
> Is he for real?
You are right. Maybe he is not real.
Oh well, I have a date with Simone tonight.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Hmm. ilias sometimes bears an striking resemblance to Eliza.
> Is he for real?
Hmmm. I'm increasingly of the opinion that Ilias is an AI. Rather like
Xah.
:)w
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> Espen Vestre wrote:
> > Hmm. ilias sometimes bears an striking resemblance to Eliza.
> > Is he for real?
> Hmmm. I'm increasingly of the opinion that Ilias is an AI. Rather like
> Xah.
I think he is an AI written by Xah.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9n0qwxj2b.fsf@glug.org>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> i don't care about me.
this is a good first step towards understanding others, but does not
guarantee it. regarding "gentleness", which is more gentle?
'(0 1)
'(0 . (1))
when is the hurricane gentle?
thi
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
>
>>i don't care about me.
>
>
> this is a good first step towards understanding others, but does not
> guarantee it. regarding "gentleness", which is more gentle?
>
> '(0 1)
> '(0 . (1))
'(0 1)
'(0 . (1))
depends on how much typing someone likes.
> when is the hurricane gentle?
>
> thi
psychological analysis.
rejected.
hey,
from my perspective, I'd rather suffer through the LW Personal
auto-shutdown or whatever, but have a product that is affordable when I
decide to buy. If you ever want to actually buy ACL, it will generally
cost more -- even a few times more, based on the last time I priced out
what I wanted, which amounts to a LW Enterprise license.
I remember not too long ago when Franz didn't charge for running a
server. Then, they decided to start charging for running a server based
on how many customers connect to the server. Meanwhile, Xanalys only
eliminated costs, including the runtime licensing.
dave
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> hey,
>
> from my perspective, I'd rather suffer through the LW Personal
> auto-shutdown or whatever, but have a product that is affordable when I
> decide to buy. If you ever want to actually buy ACL, it will generally
> cost more -- even a few times more, based on the last time I priced out
> what I wanted, which amounts to a LW Enterprise license.
>
> I remember not too long ago when Franz didn't charge for running a
> server. Then, they decided to start charging for running a server based
> on how many customers connect to the server. Meanwhile, Xanalys only
> eliminated costs, including the runtime licensing.
>
> dave
Under Linux/Intel, are either Franz or Xanalys licensed systems better in
any particular ways than CMUCL?
Oleg
> Under Linux/Intel, are either Franz or Xanalys licensed systems
> better in any particular ways than CMUCL?
My impression is that, on the Linux/X86 platform, Franz is more solid
than CMUCL at this point. One thing that's clearly better is the
multiprocessing, for example.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Jordan Hubbard: We have a crash bug. It needs to be fixed. We DO NOT
need to know how to print 3000 spaces in 11 different languages! :-)
Daniel Sobral: I concur. But if anyone wants to do it with loader,
: 3kbl 3000 0 do bl emit loop ; 3kbl will do the trick.
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> > Under Linux/Intel, are either Franz or Xanalys licensed systems
> > better in any particular ways than CMUCL?
>
> My impression is that, on the Linux/X86 platform, Franz is more solid
> than CMUCL at this point. One thing that's clearly better is the
> multiprocessing, for example.
I've heard also that CLOS, in general, is pretty slow on CMUCL.
I've generally had great success writing multi-threaded apps in CL under
LispWorks. No major issues, and good responsiveness. Back when I used
ACL, it was mostly the same.
dave
Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
> > > Under Linux/Intel, are either Franz or Xanalys licensed systems
> > > better in any particular ways than CMUCL?
> >
> > My impression is that, on the Linux/X86 platform, Franz is more solid
> > than CMUCL at this point. One thing that's clearly better is the
> > multiprocessing, for example.
>
> I've heard also that CLOS, in general, is pretty slow on CMUCL.
It depends, but yeah, if you want to make heavy use of CLOS and you
need really good performance, CMUCL is lacking. On the other hand,
it's generally good enough (for me anyway[*]) ... and with the cleanups
Gerd Moellmann's been doing recently in the PCL code, it might be
easier to better integrate PCL and get some performance increases.
[*] I tend to write code in two modes: numerical code, where I'm
constantly disassembling, cycle-counting, etc.; and non-numerical
code, where I care about algorithmic complexity, not the exact number
of cycles. I don't write OO numerical code, so PCL isn't an issue
there. For my OO code, PCL introduces constant factors that are small
enough that I don't generally need to rewrite my code to use
structures.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Dave Bakhash wrote:
> I've heard also that CLOS, in general, is pretty slow on CMUCL.
I'm not so sure about this. I've heard MOP is pretty slow on CMUCL but
with the little "gentlemanly" lisp pursuits I sometimes engage in, the
speed of CLOS is fine. But what do I know?
:)w
On 05 Sep 2002 15:28:32 -0400, Dave Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I've heard also that CLOS, in general, is pretty slow on CMUCL.
This issue is covered in one of the documents (a message by Pierre Mai)
included in the EncyCMUCLopedia (which needs updating, I know; will work on
it).
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <877ki01n5e.fsf@fbigm.here>
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> writes:
> Dave Bakhash wrote:
>
> > hey,
> >
> > from my perspective, I'd rather suffer through the LW Personal
> > auto-shutdown or whatever, but have a product that is affordable when I
> > decide to buy. If you ever want to actually buy ACL, it will generally
> > cost more -- even a few times more, based on the last time I priced out
> > what I wanted, which amounts to a LW Enterprise license.
> >
> > I remember not too long ago when Franz didn't charge for running a
> > server. Then, they decided to start charging for running a server based
> > on how many customers connect to the server. Meanwhile, Xanalys only
> > eliminated costs, including the runtime licensing.
> >
> > dave
>
> Under Linux/Intel, are either Franz or Xanalys licensed systems better in
> any particular ways than CMUCL?
Well according to Xanalys you do not have to pay runtime fees. I do
not know what Franz asked for.
Regards
Friedrich
ilias wrote:
> There is a time-limit. After 4 hours a warning, one hour later an the
> programm exits (of course you can start the program again then).
>
> I don't know if the "promise"....Is kept. I mean if the program exits without warning and (as the last
> sentence implies) without saving.
so you would be OK with it shutting down after five hours if it saved
first? then why not save and shut down yourself at the four hour
warning? too simple?
gives you a chance to get some coffee, make some calls, take a leak,
whatever. true, four hours seems like twenty minutes when i am
programming... that's why I buy (gasp!) the full product instead of
trying to use the trial edition to rip off the vendor.
kenny
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <87sn0opr9a.fsf@fbigm.here>
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Dave Bakhash wrote in topic "CL and telephony -- Portus CTI products"
>
> ...many most positive things about Xanalys and LispWorks in
> conjunction with a real-life professional-business-project.
>
>
> Dave, thank you for your very interesting report.
>
> The following are general remarks that of course interest only
> low-budget or no-budget developers, students, players and so on.
>
>
> Only?
>
>
> Xanalys - time to act!
>
> One negative thing if found in Xanalys LispWorks is the free
> downloadable "Personal Edition".
>
>
> Free Personal Edition - negative?
>
> There is a time-limit. After 4 hours a warning, one hour later an the
> programm exits (of course you can start the program again then).
>
>
> I don't know if the "promise":
>
> > You are approaching the time-limit for the Personal Edition of
> > LispWorks. You have one hour remaining at the end of which this
> > image will terminate without further warning. If you choose to
> > continue now you are advised to save your work at regular
> > intervals.
>
> Is kept. I mean if the program exits without warning and (as the last
> sentence implies) without saving.
I would think it's not you business to critizese Xanalys for their
business model. If you do not like it, don't use it.
Hasta la vista
Friedrich
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D775289.10DF12FB@smi.de>
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> I would think it's not you business to critizese Xanalys for their
> business model. If you do not like it, don't use it.
>
But thats also not what Xanalys want ;-)
I like Lispworks on Windows. It's a handy tool to learn lisp. And
i think it's very generous from Xanalys to offer a personal edition
(that also holds for Franz inc.).
However, i would like to buy a "private" Edition for, lets say, $300 that has
the same features like the professional version (i.e. CLIM) but without the
right to redistribute executables and without the right to use it for
non-private projects.
Why i ask for this ? As a private user i doesn't need i.e. much vendor
support for the product. But i would like to have some more features, like ilias.
If i have to pay for a whole license it would be to expensive. So i would
stay with the personal edition still missing some stuff and Xanalys didn't earn
my $300.
Make that sense ?
Sincerly
AHz
P.S. Just for the records: On linux i use CMUCL. Great tool and i love to look
into the sources for learning.
A.
Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> writes:
> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> >
> > I would think it's not you business to critizese Xanalys for their
> > business model. If you do not like it, don't use it.
> >
> But thats also not what Xanalys want ;-) I like Lispworks on
> Windows. It's a handy tool to learn lisp. And i think it's very
> generous from Xanalys to offer a personal edition (that also holds
> for Franz inc.). However, i would like to buy a "private" Edition
> for, lets say, $300 that has the same features like the professional
> version (i.e. CLIM) but without the right to redistribute
> executables and without the right to use it for non-private
> projects.
You might also ask Daimler-Benz if they give you a cheaper Mercedes if
you promise not to drive faster than 120 km/h ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche wrote:
> Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> writes:
>
>> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>> >
>> > I would think it's not you business to critizese Xanalys for their
>> > business model. If you do not like it, don't use it.
>> >
>
>> But thats also not what Xanalys want ;-) I like Lispworks on
>> Windows. It's a handy tool to learn lisp. And i think it's very
>> generous from Xanalys to offer a personal edition (that also holds
>> for Franz inc.). However, i would like to buy a "private" Edition
>> for, lets say, $300 that has the same features like the professional
>> version (i.e. CLIM) but without the right to redistribute
>> executables and without the right to use it for non-private
>> projects.
>
> You might also ask Daimler-Benz if they give you a cheaper Mercedes if
> you promise not to drive faster than 120 km/h ;-)
Well, their marginal cost (excluding support and not counting opportunity
cost) is probably around $0. If the customer waived support and proved that
there is NO way he would buy their product otherwise, and _IF_ (big if)
they could do this type of discriminatory pricing, it would actually make
sense to give out their product for free to promote Lisp [1] and possibly
hurt the competition.
Oleg
[1] "Look, our product is so easy to use, even dyslexics can do it!" (just
kidding)
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> writes:
> Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > You might also ask Daimler-Benz if they give you a cheaper Mercedes if
> > you promise not to drive faster than 120 km/h ;-)
>
> Well, their marginal cost (excluding support and not counting
> opportunity cost) is probably around $0. If the customer waived
> support and proved that there is NO way he would buy their product
> otherwise, and _IF_ (big if) they could do this type of
> discriminatory pricing, it would actually make sense to give out
> their product for free to promote Lisp [1] and possibly hurt the
> competition.
Somebody /is/ paying for the immense development cost of a Mercedes
model. Guess who ;-) Steel isn't /that/ expensive.
The ``Professional Edition'' already is quite cheap. I bought it to
check their product out. I liked it and will buy the ``Enterprise
Edition'' next time. My guess is that they figure that if you are not
even willing to spend the few bucks needed for the Professional
Edition, it is not likely they'll get any more money out of you,
anyway, and I tend to agree. For playing around, and much more than
that, there are wonderful free Lisps around. If you want luxury, you
have to pay for it. If you think an Audi isn't enough for you, you
have to spend real money for something more luxurious. If you think
your wife would look better with nice diamond collier, you get the
money and buy one. If you're not willing to spend the money, get her
some earrings instead, but don't complain that people should give you
cheaper colliers just because you want to save money.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> Somebody is paying for the immense development cost of a Mercedes
> model.��Guess�who�;-)��Steel�isn't�that�expensive.
>
Development cost is irrelevant in calculating marginal cost, which is by
definition the cost of making/selling 1 more copy (for illias). BTW just to
clarify, I was talking about software, not cars, of course.
Oleg
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D77B6E4.68DD0BF4@smi.de>
Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> The ``Professional Edition'' already is quite cheap. I bought it to
> check their product out. I liked it and will buy the ``Enterprise
> Edition'' next time.
>
I would happily agree if i would use lisp for making money. For professionals
the product pricing is very good. However, for private use it is too expensive
(i'm speaking for me only, of course).
> My guess is that they figure that if you are not
> even willing to spend the few bucks needed for the Professional
> Edition, it is not likely they'll get any more money out of you,
> anyway, and I tend to agree.
My $300 approach give them the chance to get more money out of me ;-)
> For playing around, and much more than
> that, there are wonderful free Lisps around. If you want luxury, you
> have to pay for it. If you think an Audi isn't enough for you, you
> have to spend real money for something more luxurious. If you think
> your wife would look better with nice diamond collier, you get the
> money and buy one. If you're not willing to spend the money, get her
> some earrings instead, but don't complain that people should give you
> cheaper colliers just because you want to save money.
>
You pay for the value that you need. If you have no drivers license you will
pay them same price for every car: $0.
And for non-comercial users the value of a product is not as high as for
a comercial user since the private one don't make money with the product.
The product is developed and maintained for comercial users. So there is no
big additional cost for developing & maintainence when they sell the full
product to private users.
The comercial users may redistribute the binaries of their programs, private
users must not (at least not for money).
So with a cheap distribution method the vendor will have $300 for each private
copy earned. For LispWorks thats around 40% of the regular price if
i remember right.
For me it looks like a win/win deal. But it's just a rough concept so i might
be wrong, of course.
Sincerly
AHz
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D7775E1.29466338@smi.de>
>
> Well, their marginal cost (excluding support and not counting opportunity
> cost) is probably around $0. If the customer waived support and proved that
> there is NO way he would buy their product otherwise, and _IF_ (big if)
> they could do this type of discriminatory pricing, it would actually make
> sense to give out their product for free to promote Lisp [1] and possibly
> hurt the competition.
>
I assume they know how many (or better how less) private users buy their products.
And if they forbit redistribution of executables of your programs and don't offer
support packages the "private" editions are less attractive for comercial use.
On the other side, if some of the privates develop a product and want to sale it
he will buy the product from that vendor he used to develop the product. And that
doesn't need to big project's.
Sincerly
AHz
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D777068.44B11C82@smi.de>
>
> You might also ask Daimler-Benz if they give you a cheaper Mercedes if
> you promise not to drive faster than 120 km/h ;-)
>
Someone did so some time ago. Daimler build the A-Class ;-)
But realy: There is a big difference in building a car or making software
at this point (please keep in mind that we are talking about aquireing private
users).
It is obvious that building one more car is not for free. But selling one
more copy of software is cheap if you are able to distribute it cheap (i.e.
downloadable from the WEB side with a licence key per EMail after paying the fee).
And while comercial customers have support contracts, private users might
have e-mail support if any.
But at the moment there is no money at all for the vendors from users of the
personal editions. And IMHO there would be a few that would pay for the "private"
edition.
Sincerly
AHz
Andreas Hinze <···@smi.de> wrote in message news:<·················@smi.de>...
> But at the moment there is no money at all for the vendors from users of the
> personal editions. And IMHO there would be a few that would pay for the "private"
> edition.
Or if that business model doesn't appeal to them, another idea that
might would be to have a website of demo Lisp programs, some of which
might get some people interested in Lisp, and possibly become Xanalys
customers. They could reward prolific contributors to that website by
giving them a free lifetime license to the enterprise edition. And if
they already bought a license, a refund. That might motivate lots of
contributions which might make the demo website a lot more popular
than Lisp, because a lot of the programs might be useful to people who
never heard of Lisp. Such a thing could with some luck actually make
the Lisp community grow many times faster than it has been.
Or better yet, they could do both. A private edition, identical to
the professional edition except that it would not be licensed for
commercial development, and a contributor's edition, identical to the
enterprise edition, with full license.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ptvrxqka.fsf@cley.com>
* Andreas Hinze wrote:
> But at the moment there is no money at all for the vendors from users of the
> personal editions. And IMHO there would be a few that would pay for the "private"
> edition.
I believe that one vendor tried this with a cheap `student' edition.
They don't do it any more, and my understanding was that this is
because no-one bought it. So maybe things aren't as simple as you
think here.
--tim
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D78B7E7.3BDA8EB0@smi.de>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> * Andreas Hinze wrote:
> > But at the moment there is no money at all for the vendors from users of the
> > personal editions. And IMHO there would be a few that would pay for the "private"
> > edition.
>
> I believe that one vendor tried this with a cheap `student' edition.
> They don't do it any more, and my understanding was that this is
> because no-one bought it. So maybe things aren't as simple as you
> think here.
>
Still wondering about that. Of course there will be a reason that they don't
offer such licences. But i don't know what it is.
Maybe the best solution would be to collect the people interrested in a
"private" edition and then ask the vendors for an offer. I would assume if they
see the market they will think about it again.
But that should be another thread ;-)
Sincerly
AHz
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3vg5j9opv.fsf@cley.com>
I think it should be more than adequate to just mail them and ask.
Say `I would buy such and such somewhat restricted thing for so and so
money' and see what they do. All the vendors have email addresses...
--tim
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <3D78C3FD.B872C991@smi.de>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I think it should be more than adequate to just mail them and ask.
> Say `I would buy such and such somewhat restricted thing for so and so
> money' and see what they do. All the vendors have email addresses...
>
I fear they will decline it because for a single customer it is too much
effort. But if there are i.e. 10 requests it might be a deal.
But one the other side you are right. What can i loose ;-)
Sincerly
AHz
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - Xanalys - time to act!
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3k7lz9l6i.fsf@cley.com>
* Andreas Hinze wrote:
> I fear they will decline it because for a single customer it is too
> much effort. But if there are i.e. 10 requests it might be a deal.
> But one the other side you are right. What can i loose ;-)
What I meant was: they can do the business of working out if there is
demand, that's what they are trying to do. You as the user don't have
to try and build up some group of people and get them all to ask.
Just ask, and let the vendor do their own sums.
--tim
* Andreas Hinze
| I fear they will decline it because for a single customer it is too much
| effort. [...] But one the other side you are right. What can i loose ;-)
Not only that, but speculation about what other people might do if you do
something that is not in any way unlawful, immoral or unethical of you, is
generally a very good way to accomplish exactly nothing. Overcome your
fears of what other people will do and just do what you think is right.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Andreas Hinze wrote:
>
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > * Andreas Hinze wrote:
> > > But at the moment there is no money at all for the vendors from users of the
> > > personal editions. And IMHO there would be a few that would pay for the "private"
> > > edition.
> >
> > I believe that one vendor tried this with a cheap `student' edition.
> > They don't do it any more, and my understanding was that this is
> > because no-one bought it. So maybe things aren't as simple as you
> > think here.
> >
> Still wondering about that. Of course there will be a reason that they don't
> offer such licences. But i don't know what it is.
We have gone through a decade where lots of software was offered for
free or for nearly nothing. I think this happened for the following
reason.
At some stage, companies realized that having a certain market share
creates some kind of dependence on a specific product, and in the long
run, this creates revenues, not because a certain product is good, but
just because using a new version of the same product is sometimes more
beneficial that switching to a different product. This kind of
dependence on a product is unique to software. With hardware, things are
a bit different: when you buy a new car you gain no real advantage from
sticking to the same brand, but it's actually wise to look for a better
car from other manufacturers than your previous car. VCRs are more
similar to computer software, because they are actually centered around
software - the actual tapes you want to watch. So when you buy a new VCR
it actually makes sense to stick to the same system because you still
want to watch your old video cassettes. With computer software you get
the same sort of dependency on a product. (In my opinion, this proves to
a certain degree that capitalism does not work in the case of softare,
but that's another topic...)
Then, a false conclusion was drawn: because companies realized that
creating a market share is very important, they started to focus on
creating market share. The easiest way to create a market share is to
give away a product for free, or for nearly nothing. However, there is a
paradoxical problem involved here: revenues are created by taking money
for a product. So creating a market share on the one hand and creating
revenues on the other hand are two contradicting forces. Giving products
away for free doesn't balance these forces but favors one over the
other. Obviously creating a market share alone doesn't buy you anything.
The collapse of the new market proves that several things have gone
wrong in the last decade. Many business plans didn't have decent
foundations. A two-step plan that consists of first creating a market
share by giving away products for free and then charge for them later on
isn't likey to work. The flaw in such a plan is that, as soon as you
start to charge money for your product, someone will give his comparable
product away for free to destroy your market share.
Now that the new market has collapsed, hopefully business plans will
change in order to have better foundations and more long-term and stable
visions. We have to get used to the fact that companies are going to
revert to charging money, or more money, for their products because
there is no other way for them to survive.
We shouldn't devalue companies because they don't offer free products,
or because we perceive them as too expensive. Another option is to
appreciate it because this increases our confidence that such a company
is more likey to survive in the long run. We were lucky that we had so
much software at our disposal for free, but this isn't necessarily a
healthy thing in the long run.
Does this reasoning make sense?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
"Pascal Costanza" <········@cs.uni-bonn.de> wrote in message
·····················@cs.uni-bonn.de...
>
> Does this reasoning make sense?
>
> Pascal
I think it is much simpler. Getting something for free results in you having to
give your product for free because they do not have any money to buy your
product (money is not circulating and no ones's efforts are valued). By
accepting stolen or free products you are accepting you cannot make a living
selling yours. An economy cannot survive that kind of thinking.
Wade
Wade Humeniuk wrote:
>
> "Pascal Costanza" <········@cs.uni-bonn.de> wrote in message
> ·····················@cs.uni-bonn.de...
> >
> > Does this reasoning make sense?
> >
> > Pascal
>
> I think it is much simpler. Getting something for free results in you having to
> give your product for free because they do not have any money to buy your
> product (money is not circulating and no ones's efforts are valued). By
> accepting stolen or free products you are accepting you cannot make a living
> selling yours. An economy cannot survive that kind of thinking.
Much fewer words but essentially the same meaning - that's an
achievement! It even includes a recursive argument!
Obviously I am still too much influenced by Java and haven't completely
converted to Lisp yet. ;-)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza
| Does this reasoning make sense?
Does to me, except where you drag in your faith in capitalism. It is as if
capitalism must suffer when people do stupid things in that system, like
they would necessarily do in every other politicoeconomic system, too. It
is somewhat like arguing that the experiment in constitutional democracy
called the United States of America should be called a failure when not even
a majority of the minority that voted, voted for George W. Bush. Although I
think the mix of stupidity and power is the single most dangerous thing in
the universe and what is ultimately going to do the whole human race in, I
still believe the American people should get a chance to vote this dangerous
average joe out of office like they did his father before we scrap the system
and proclaim our loss of faith in democracy. Even the law-breaking abuses
of market "power" perpetrated by the most villainous leader of orgranized
crime in the history of the world, William H. Gates III, does not imply that
the system is worth giving up over alternatives that institute organized
crime at the government level. If a system should really succeed in making
it impossible to do stupid things before they happened, it should aim at
genetically improving human beings instead of restricting their freedom.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
...
>>Is kept. I mean if the program exits without warning and (as the last
>>sentence implies) without saving.
>
> I would think it's not you business to critizese Xanalys for their
> business model. If you do not like it, don't use it.
>
> Hasta la vista
> Friedrich
i would think it's not you business to critizese ilias for his
critizese model. If you do not like it, don't read it.
e viva espana
ilias