From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:24:00 GMT
From: usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!d
arwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!nitelog!michae
l.hagerty@gatech.edu  (Michael Hagerty)
Subject: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD
Message-ID: <921.237.uupcb@nitelog.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12-21-92, GREGORY AHARONIAN wrote to ALL:

GA> Why is this a bad pricing structure?  First, most DoE codes are in
GA> Fortran, and most scientists and engineers are used to porting such
GA> codes across platforms with ease, which for supercomputers is helped by
GA> tools from the manufacturer.  Thus to save money, I would buy the
GA> personal computer version and port it myself, given the very high
GA> markups for the non-personal computer versions.  Thus if there is any
GA> economic need by the DoE center to charge high prices to recoup or
GA> cover some support cost, it is undermined by the market.

I believe that DOE is merely aping what every vendor in the country does
already: base the cost of the software on the perceived cost of the hard
ware on which it is to be run.  Note the difference in cost of compilers
for PCs, workstations, minis and mainframes.  I've heard justifications
ad nauseum from vendors for this structuring and they all sound equally
foolish.

Regards, Mikey (michael.hagerty@nitelog.com)

 * JABBER v1.3B1 #B042 * Include this in your CONFIG.SYS File: SET BUGS=OFF