Re: X statement
For an interesting time, check out the ongoing discussions on some of
the X-releated newsgroups. In it, we see Kaleb Kiethly arguing:
1) Because the people who are paying for X are apathetic about it, we
need to charge a larger group.
2) That X development is time-critical, even though it's taking about
2 years for the big commercial UNIX vendors to incorporate the
3) That the cost is about $0.15 per license, which ignores the fact
that the smallest license agreement is for 50000(?) units (so
everyone who burns a few cd-r's and sells them for the cost of the
blank+their time has to fork over $7500.)
Not to mention directly contradicting the terms of the actual license
(saying that strict accounting for sales is not necessary, while the
license states that it is, for example).
I get the feeling that this was a very poorly planned move by the Open
Group. Certainly they didn't have a bunch of lawyers figuring out
exactly what they wanted to say. If you include the fact that
commercial UNIX workstations are rapidly disappearing (about all you
can buy anymore are the very high end workstations that aren't worth
the cost unless you need the graphics performance they provide), this
may be the death knell for advancements on the sample implementation
as provided by the X Consortium and now the Open Group.
Just my $.02
Larry Daffner | Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC!
email@example.com / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/
Life is too important to take seriously. -- Corky Siegel
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com