Please help -- commercial vendor not taking Linux seriously.

Please help -- commercial vendor not taking Linux seriously.

Post by Steve Frampt » Sat, 04 Nov 1995 04:00:00



Hello:

I recently asked a commercial vendor if a version of their software
had been ported to Linux.  After I was told, "no", I asked why not,
and received the following message:

Quote:> First - there is no extended PASCAL compiler that works well enough (or
> works?) on Linux.  Second - Linus does not have threads.  These are 2
> important factors for our [...] package.

> Isn't Linux still a "freebie"?

As a relative newbie to Linux, I am not armed with enough knowledge to
counter-respond (if, indeed, she is incorrect).

Are they correct?  What should I tell them?  I continue to fight a
daily battle to get people to take Linux seriously -- please help.

 
 
 

Please help -- commercial vendor not taking Linux seriously.

Post by Jack Wils » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>I recently asked a commercial vendor if a version of their software
>had been ported to Linux.  After I was told, "no", I asked why not,
>and received the following message:

>> First - there is no extended PASCAL compiler that works well enough (or
>> works?) on Linux.  Second - Linus does not have threads.  These are 2
>> important factors for our [...] package.

If they are coding their apps in PASCAL, they are the ones who have a
credibility problem, not Linux... 1/2 :-)

Quote:

>> Isn't Linux still a "freebie"?

>As a relative newbie to Linux, I am not armed with enough knowledge to
>counter-respond (if, indeed, she is incorrect).

>Are they correct?  What should I tell them?  I continue to fight a
>daily battle to get people to take Linux seriously -- please help.

Linux is free, but this isn't necessarily a mark against it for commercial
use.

First of all, the source code is available.  If Linus dies tomorrow, linux
is safe.  This is, or *should be*, a big win for linux.  Most companies that
do mission-critical app development or depend on mission-critical apps want
assurances that if the company they are depending on goes under, they will
get the source code.

Second, support is available on a contract and pay-per-use basis.  "But I
get free support when I buy a commercial software product."  No you don't,
you are paying for that support in the price tag for the software.  And any
kind of meaningful support costs extra.  Check out this blurb from Borland's
"Support on Demand" pamphlet for BC++:

   "Incident Line:

   "An incident is defined as a single support issue and the effort needed
    to resolve it.  A single support issue is a problem which cannot be
    broken down into subordinate problems.  Before an incident is opened for
    a customer, the customer and the engineer must agree on what the problem
    is and the parameters for an acceptable solution..."

   [In other words, if the tech support guy thinks the problem will eat up too
much time, he'll refuse to help.]

   "Pricing: $200/incident.  10-pack: $1800.  $500 minimum for purchase
    orders."

   This is on top of the suggested retail price of $399, which includes
"unlimited free support" in the form of a toll call to a tech support peon,
who won't answer any questions except those related to "software setup and
installation."

   Practically every shrinkwrapped software product I've ever seen or bought
has similar "support plans", BTW.

   So I have to question the software company (who was it, by the way?) who
brushed off Linux as an unimportant platform.

--

= <a href="http://www.msilink.com/~deejay/">My home page</a> =

 
 
 

Please help -- commercial vendor not taking Linux seriously.

Post by Ken L » Sun, 05 Nov 1995 04:00:00



Quote:Frampton) writes:

|> Are they correct?  What should I tell them?  I continue to fight a
|> daily battle to get people to take Linux seriously -- please help.

Tell them that if they port their software to Linux, that you will
guarantee that they will make a profit.  If you can't make this
guarantee (or anything close), you should understand why they are
reluctant to spend the money.

--