"Anthony Mandic" <nu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F2368E5.ED5037A0@hotmail.com...
> "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> >
> > As someone who works in a University, I am amazed UNIX vendors don't
> > give away free copies of their operating systems to students and home
> > users.
>
> Why? Do Microsoft do this? Perhaps you should widen your
> job experience.
>
50 UK pounds for Windows 2000 student license, compare to what I paid
for HP-UX 11i for 100pounds from eBay + shipping, Irix 6.5 base with
6.5.2 and 6.5.13 update for 75pounds + shipping, both WITHOUT license,
media kits only.
My second copy of Windows 2000 was given to me for free by MS UK.

> > If HP gave away HP-UX, whereas Sun, SGI, IBM etc. did not give
> > their OS releases, home users would be more likely to buy cheap used
> > HP kit.
>
> How do you conclude that?
>
Since Dr. Kirkby told me how fast his HP C3600 is compare to his
quad 450MHz U80, I have been trying to find a HP machine too.
For 1000US, you can find an HP C3600 from eBay with faster
processor than a single 450MHz U60/80 which tend to have higher
price tag.
BUT, you can downloads Solaris ISO from Sun but not HP-UX.

> > When those home users go in to industry, they are more likely
> > to buy **EXPENSIVE** new HP kit.
>
> What makes you think they would be in a position to do so?
>
People get used to the hardwares and softwares they use, I can't get over
using Outlook Express as my default news client, even got IE5 on my
Sol8 machine, now guess what I will use as my news reader 10 years later.

> Exactly how many home users go from there immediately to
> management positions with buying power?
>
Not a lot, but guess how MS become so dominent.

> > So it's to HP's advantage to give
> > away HP-UX to students and home users.
>
> I can't see how you can draw that conclusion.
>
Quote from Uli:
"If the students become consultants, they surely will prefer something they
know by heart.
One big advance of Linux these days."

> > The same can be said for any UNIX hardware vendor - I strongly suspect
> > it's in their long term economic interest to encourage people to learn
> > their operating systems. Once you know one commercial UNIX operating
> > system, you are likely to want to stick to it.
>
> That sounds more like conjecture. What evidence do you have
> to support that claim?
>
Same quote...


> > Why on earth Sun don't change the licence conditions of their
> > so-called free licence for Solaris on SPARC, I don't know. Solaris can
> > be freely downloaded, yet its illegal to use it on virtually all used
> > Sun kit sold. Their previous licence, which allowed for its use on
> > machines of up to 8 CPUs seemed more sensible.
>
> Why? How many home users/students have 8 CPU systems?
>
Not a lot, lets suppose we all buy from a reseller,
a SS10/20 and U2 can take more than 1 CPU, even
a dual CPU U60 goes for under 1000pounds now.

> > HP have a reasonably attractive package that allows non-commerical
> > users to gain the latest copy of the Tru64 operating system and the HP
> > C compiler for Tru64 for $100. Yet HP have no such policy with their
> > other UNIX operating system (HP-UX).
>
> Your point being?
>
> > I'd like to know HP's logic of the differing policies of Tru64 and
> > HP-UX. It seems very odd to sell Tru64 and compiler for $99, yet give
> > no discounts on the HP-UX.
>
> Is it $99 or $100?
>
$1....WOW! that's a lot of money, you can buy a botte of mineral water.


> > One can't expect Microsoft to give Windoze away for free, as Microsoft
> > will never gain any extra revenue from hardware sales.
> >

> But by your previous arguments, said home users of such
> free software would go on to use it commercially.
>
Microsoft = software company = sell softwares for $$$.
Sun, HP, IBM, SGI = hardware companies who sell their own softwares =
selling hardwares for living, not softwares.

> > But SGI, HP, IBM, Sun etc. will gain extra sales of hardware, by
allowing
> > home users to learn their operating systems, rather than that of their
> > competitors.
>
> You're argument seems specious to me. One could just as easily
> conclude that it would be better to do as MS does and stick to
> software and forget about hardware.
>
Irix works on MIPS, HP-UX runs on PA and Itanium, Solaris on Sparc with
limited support on x86.
Now who makes MIPS, PA and Sparc based machine?
If SGI do as MS, you would have possibily the prettiest OS without any
hardwares
to run it on.

> > One can't expect SCO to give away SCO UNIX, as again they will gain no
> > extra revenue from hardware sales, although they might have done with
> > software sales had Linux never existed.
>
> How do you conclude that?
>
The whole software and hardware company thingy.


> > But I don't think any home
> > user or student would care less whether or not SCO was given away now.
>
> Again, how do you conclude that?
>
I am the only person in the entire department of EE.Eng with a copy of SCO
UnixWare


Those are just my opinions

Yuan