Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:23:49 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: mike allison <mallison@konnections.com> Cc: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, chat@freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Commercial, Non-Hacker CD Distribution - A thought Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970419145104.4592K-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <335A6091.4D94174B@konnections.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, mike allison wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >
> > A commercial CD would mean I'd have something that I consider to be
> > solid to go at the manager of IS with and say "here, a very good operating
> > system with appropriate software", with which I'd have a chance of getting
> > him/her into testing for office computers...as a *much cheaper* replacement
> > for Win95/NT...*and* that is more stable, and more efficient...
> >
> > Its generally a seperate market that I was looking at, from 'the
> > Hackers' that Linux/RedHat has been smart enough to work at tapping...
>
> Again, here Marc and I differ slightly in that I think Marc says - A
> ditribution which includes these commercial packages. The packages
> would have free use licenses to non-commercial users. I don't think
> that will work, exactly for these reasons:
Hrmmm...no. I was more looking at something like this.
I work for the IS department of a company that is currently looking
at upgrading machine, or just installing some more machines for new staff.
I'm a FreeBSD advocate, and would prefer to take revenue away from MicroSloth
and put it into FreeBSD-related products instead.
Now, if I look on the market, something like MS Office goes for
about $400 (last I checked was over a year ago, might be cheaper?), and
that doesn't even cover the operating system, which is another $100 over
top of that. (again, these are ficticious prices)
Now, since I'd rather run/maintain a serious of FreeBSD boxes over
top of MicroSloth, I go to my boss (again, ficticious, since I don't work
for anyone) and suggest going out and grabbing a FreeBSD CD ($39.95US) and
grabbing StarOffice (free, based on fact that I'm *only* evaluating it) to
evaluate that solution vs MicroSloth. After several minutes, I finally
convince him to get off the floor from laughing so hard :)
Most ppl in business take a $500 package more seriously then a
cheaper one, especially since it says 'MicroSloth' on the box.
Change the scenario slightly.
I go to boss and explain to him the benefits of working in a Unix
environment, and convince him to evaluate a commercial FreeBSD CD that
has a 'brain-dead' installation procedure (GUI, not curses based) that
costs $100, but gives him benefits over and above NT (what is the cost for
NT nowadays?) and uses *less* hardware resources to run. Add to that
the availability of a 'packages' CD for $400 that includes soooo much more
then just MS Office (StarOffice, Netscape, <insert other software here>)
and that still requires less resources then NT once everything is installed.
He's still wary, but at least he's not ripping a gut laughing on
the floor this time...now he's taking me a bit more seriously.
Basically, the idea is to offer *more* then MicroSloth for the
same or less cost.
We've already got *more* of an operating system, its the 'office' or
'support' utilities for 'joe blow public' that are seriously lacking...
Linux is tapping that market, since they have the userbase to do it...we
need to go to ppl like StarDivision and convince them to port to us as well,
and the only way of doing that is showing a profitable need for them to do
so...
Which was the whole idea behind the 'commercial CD package(s)'.
For you and me, CVSup and ports covers pretty much everything
we need...for the IS manager, they want binaries that don't need to be
tweaked to get to run...they want it to run out of the box.
> First, you're killing your argument because, on one level, we;re
> talking about commercial use and, the traditional use of distros is a
> Free License which would mean that the vendors only get a partial
> stipend for their packages. (i.e., if you loaned the Star CD to me, I
> wouldn't pay the license).
I could loan you my Star CD, or my FreeBSD Commercial CD...if I
understand what you are saying, make it a 2 CD package...FreeBSD on one
(Free License) and Commercial Software on other (Licensed Products)
> Second, I think the vendors would want more control over the sales and
> packaging. It would need be separate.
And what control does StarDivision have over distributing StarOffice
via ports?
> ApplixWare arrived with the ApplixWare CD and a RHLinux CD. So it was
> the opposite. The commercial product arrived with the distribution.
> Sorta like, buy the product and get the OS for free. And it's
> guarenteed to run with the OS.
>
> My idea is closer to this. You're not wrong to want free (cost free)
> distribution, but I think we need to bear some cost for applications. I
> don't think we need to pay MORE for Unix Licenses as we traditionally
> have in the past, but i don't need to pay less. If Office is 189.00 for
> NT/95, I'd pay 189 for *BSD. I think I should get the optimum *BSD
> distribution with it but, in the end, it will arrive in a Microsoft box,
> not a WC box.
Actually, I think I came across wrong...I was not looking for a
free/cost free distribution...quite simply, if we (FreeBSD, Inc) could
come up with an equivalent to RHLinux/ApplixWare, that was reasonably
prices, and that gave me something I could go to a friends computer,
install it over top of his NT/95 while giving him/her as little grief as
possible, I'd be willing to actually buy copies. If you can get FreeBSD/Unix
installed on 'computer illiterate ppls' computers as easily as MicroSloth,
then you've taken one *major* step towards market acceptance...you've
reduced the "fear" level.
> This takes us back to the stability issue, again. If our releases are
> too close and too different, my Office Suite might not run on this
> version of my OS and I'll have to upgrade/reinst the OS. ApplixWare
> gave me that -- if you're not using RH release 4.01, then use the disc
> to upgrade. I wasn't using RH and I reserved a disc for the
> implementation, but I'd have been pissed if I have RH Release 3.0 and
> had to risk a substantial patch or upgrade to run a package I just paid
> 179 dollars for....
How many MicroSloth users would ever think to upgrade their
computers? I'm not looking at ppl like you and me that upgrade their
systems weekly/daily...I'm looking at ppl like a friend of mine that uses
MicroSloth in day-to-day business and hasn't upgraded since she first
installed Win 3.11 *shrug*
Again, mimick MicroSloth to a certain extent. Most users won't
upgrade on minor releases, its just too much hassle. For most, an OS
upgrade will be performed by their Systems department, and most of those
tend to evaluate new software before unleashing it onto the users (or
else risk support hell) ...
From what I've seen over the past couple of years with FreeBSD,
-current is totally unstable (one week could see major changes in the
various APIs), but -release(s) tend to be stable, with minor changes
between minor releases...but nothing major changed in libraries or whatnot
that would cause a binary to fail from, say, 2.2.0 to 2.2.1 to 2.2.2
When a new -release is made, update the operating system, and
update the commercial packages as appropriate, and offer an upgrade path
(send us in the UPC code from your old version + $39.95 and get the newest
stable version)...encourage ppl to stay as current as stability allows.
Bear in mind that I'm merely throwing out suggestions/ideas on
what I think needs to be done to dam up the flow of ppl using MicroSloth
products and to encourage development of more products *like* StarOffice
for Unix (and, in particular, FreeBSD)...its going ot take a helluva lot
more ppl and interest to change the ideas into solutions, which was why
I started this thread in the first place :)
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.970419145104.4592K-100000>