Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:13:53 -0400 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au Cc: michaelv@MindBender.serv.net, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Exchange vs. Notes Message-ID: <199706071713.NAA08912@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199706070817.RAA11671@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> (message from Michael Smith on Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:47:30 %2B0930 (CST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> So where can we grab the source from to validate your claims, check >>> for security holes, or make variances between what you think we want >>> and we want for ourselves? >> Uh yeah, right. Look, I'm all for the free Unix thing myself, but >> there really is a market for commercial software and enterprise level >> support. Try to get the source code to Digital Unix. Or HP/UX. :-) >Yup. If I go, cap in hand (and a large cheque as well), such things >can be had. Or at the very least, I can look to a wide range of >functionally equivalent alternatives, whose behaviour, security, etc. >can be studied and modified to suit the requirements of a particular >situation. This is also traditionally true with Unix software's source code. While I worked with a company that develops Windows software, I had one gentleman I spoke with outraged because the source code didn't come with our product. (How could I tell him that I sympathized with his plight?) > But Exchange is, and seeks to be, something other. Microsoft have > made no bones about crushing any possible alternatives (you have > yourself alluded to this), yet refusing any chance of peer review. "We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Notes is irrelevant. Resistance is futilie. You will be assimilated." > Please reread what I wrote. In particular ISV != ISP. The people > that pay most of my way develop unique data acquisition and control > software for a wide variety of research applications. We work > wherever possible with "free" software, because bitter experience has > shown that the only support that you can truly count on is your own, > and to a considerable but somewhat lesser degree, that of other > concerned individuals. The few "non-free" software components we work > with are continual thorns in our collective backside. So what's your view on BSD/I? >> And don't believe MS is going to ignore the ISP market forever. On >> the other hand, what they develop will most likely be significantly >> cheaper than commercial Unix solutions, but will still not be free. > *shrug* The ISP market is already in its death throes. The telcos > have decided there is money to be made in it, as was inevitable from > the start. All that is left is for them to slowly develop enough of a > clue to bring the complaint threshold down into the financial noise, > and the "ISP" market will be no more. Out here in West Texas, trends such as this are difficult to see. Do you really think that the telcos are going to be able to squelch all competition in this market? Also, are you referring only to your dialup ISPs, or are you also talking about your larger ISPs, the ones that the small dialups connect to? (Yes, I realize that this is largely Sprint, MCI, and other LD groups, but AlterNet and other groups still exist.) Happy hacking, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706071713.NAA08912>