[/.] Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[/.] Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Martin Krischik]

So AdaCore is not the only company asking to much for there cometial
offering:

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/0452244

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Adrian Hoe]

On Oct 7, 1:36 am, Martin Krischik <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> So AdaCore is not the only company asking to much for there cometial
> offering:
>
> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/0452244
>
> Martin


IMO, AdaCore is not asking too much for commercial support. My company
had previously intended to sign up the subscription but we never did it
because we had got a co-worker who was quite good in gnat. I would say
the subscription is aimed for those seriously developing some awesome
software. Being a small company, of course, will have to consider
spending so much that is over budget!

Still love to see if AdaCore would lower down its fees for smaller
company like us.
--
Adrian Hoe
http://adrianhoe.net
http://adrianhoe.com

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[sg]

Adrian Hoe napisał(a):
> On Oct 7, 1:36 am, Martin Krischik <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>> So AdaCore is not the only company asking to much for there cometial
>> offering:
>>
>> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/0452244
>>
>> Martin
> 
> 
> IMO, AdaCore is not asking too much for commercial support. My company
> had previously intended to sign up the subscription but we never did it
> because we had got a co-worker who was quite good in gnat. I would say
> the subscription is aimed for those seriously developing some awesome
> software. Being a small company, of course, will have to consider
> spending so much that is over budget!
> 

well, but what if I want just a compiler without any support and just 
for 3 seats... not for 5, and not with GPL?

> Still love to see if AdaCore would lower down its fees for smaller
> company like us.

right

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Adrian Hoe]

On Oct 12, 11:17 am, sg <a...@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> wrote:
> Adrian Hoe napisa³(a):
>
>
> > well, but what if I want just a compiler without any support and just
> for 3 seats... not for 5, and not with GPL?

Exactly what we wanted for 3 only but still have to pay for 5. Wish
they can be more flexible.
--
Adrian Hoe
http://adrianhoe.net
http://adrianhoe.com

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1160631304.552665.260340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Adrian Hoe" <abyhoe@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 12, 11:17 am, sg <a...@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> wrote:
>> Adrian Hoe napisa=B3(a):
>>
>>
>> > well, but what if I want just a compiler without any support and just
>> for 3 seats... not for 5, and not with GPL?
> 
> Exactly what we wanted for 3 only but still have to pay for 5. Wish
> they can be more flexible.

The president of ACT has said that below a certain level it is _more_
expensive for them to support a smaller number of users than a larger
number.  When one gets to 5 users, there is some self-help provided
between people in the customer organization.

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[sg]

Larry Kilgallen napisał(a):
> In article <1160631304.552665.260340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Adrian Hoe" <abyhoe@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Oct 12, 11:17 am, sg <a...@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> wrote:
>>> Adrian Hoe napisa=B3(a):
>>>
>>>
>>>> well, but what if I want just a compiler without any support and just
>>> for 3 seats... not for 5, and not with GPL?
>> Exactly what we wanted for 3 only but still have to pay for 5. Wish
>> they can be more flexible.
> 
> The president of ACT has said that below a certain level it is _more_
> expensive for them to support a smaller number of users than a larger
> number.  When one gets to 5 users, there is some self-help provided
> between people in the customer organization.

OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all I can't

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:43:17 +0200, sg wrote:

> Larry Kilgallen napisaďż˝(a):

>> The president of ACT has said that below a certain level it is _more_
>> expensive for them to support a smaller number of users than a larger
>> number.  When one gets to 5 users, there is some self-help provided
>> between people in the customer organization.
> 
> OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all I can't

Umm, like Windows without Media Player? ... (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

sg a �crit :

> OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all I can't

Of course since AdaCore is selling support :)

In your case use the GNAT/FSF version. There is no support.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

>> OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all
>> I can't

Pascal> Of course since AdaCore is selling support :)

Well, not only, AdaCore also sells a non-GPL version of the compiler
with the guarantee that it is ok to use it in a proprietary context.

It looks like some people would like to buy only that part.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

Samuel Tardieu a �crit :

> Well, not only, AdaCore also sells a non-GPL version of the compiler
> with the guarantee that it is ok to use it in a proprietary context.

Isn't this the case with GNAT/FSF too ?

We already had this debate here, and I certainly do not want to restart
it. But we have 3 GNAT compilers : GNAT Pro, GNAT GPL, GNAT/FSF. I think
that every needs are covered. Not talking about other vendor's
offerings. I find it hard to believe that some people can't find the
right tool for their work...

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Stephen Leake]

"Adrian Hoe" <abyhoe@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 7, 1:36 am, Martin Krischik <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>> So AdaCore is not the only company asking to much for there cometial
>> offering:
>>
>> http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/0452244
>>
>> Martin
>
>
> IMO, AdaCore is not asking too much for commercial support. 

I agree whole-heartedly; the support they provide is well worth it.

I wish the other companies I deal with had an option to pay more for
better support. Instead, I have to spend my time hassling them to let
me talk to the people who actually know something, instead of the
front-end support filter people. It ends up costing me more than
AdaCore does.

> Being a small company, of course,
> will have to consider spending so much that is over budget!

I do have the luxury of working for a big company; NASA. Sometimes, we
manage to do things right :).

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

Pascal> Samuel Tardieu a �crit :
>> Well, not only, AdaCore also sells a non-GPL version of the
>> compiler with the guarantee that it is ok to use it in a
>> proprietary context.

Pascal> Isn't this the case with GNAT/FSF too ?

No: the FSF doesn't give you a *guarantee* (in the form of a signed
document). If someone stands up and says "you cannot use this part of
GNAT in a proprietary context because I have a copyright on this part
and didn't allow it to be used in such context", AdaCore would handle
the problem and deal with the claim (if you have the signed
guarantee), while you have no such guarantee with the FSF.

This is one important added-value sold by AdaCore. Unfortunately (to
some people who would need it), you cannot separate that from the
support contract as AdaCore sells it as a bundle.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

Samuel Tardieu a �crit :
> No: the FSF doesn't give you a *guarantee* (in the form of a signed
> document). If someone stands up and says "you cannot use this part of
> GNAT in a proprietary context because I have a copyright on this part
> and didn't allow it to be used in such context", AdaCore would handle
> the problem and deal with the claim (if you have the signed
> guarantee), while you have no such guarantee with the FSF.

Ok, ok and millions of people are developing softwares with C/C++ using
GCC/FSF without trouble :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Alexander E. Kopilovich]

Pascal Obry wrote:

> millions of people are developing softwares with C/C++ using
>GCC/FSF without trouble :)

Well, perhaps millions of people were freely using Linux without trouble until
SCO made some claims.

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

Alexander E. Kopilovich a �crit :

> Well, perhaps millions of people were freely using Linux without trouble until
> SCO made some claims.

And this has changed nothing for the developers ! Let's stop the FUD!

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

Alexander E. Kopilovich a �crit :

> Well, perhaps millions of people were freely using Linux without trouble until
> SCO made some claims.

And this has changed nothing for the developers ! Let's stop the FUD!

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Stephen Leake]

sg <alpha@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> writes:

> OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all I can't

What does this mean?

GNAT is GMGPL or GPL; there is no license to buy. The only thing you
can buy is support.

If you don't need support, just use a publicly released version of
GNAT, either from https://libre2.adacore.com/, or from an FSF GCC
distribution.

Hmm. The latest public GNAT from https://libre2.adacore.com/ is under
the GPL license. Perhaps you mean you want GMGPL instead of GPL; is
that the issue?

In that case, you can use the FSF GCC distribution of GNAT; it is
GMGPL. However, it is pretty broken, compared to the
https://libre2.adacore.com/ distribution. But that just means you
actually do need support, and we are back to option 1 :).

TANSTAAFL

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Björn Persson]

Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote:
> Pascal Obry wrote:
> 
>> millions of people are developing softwares with C/C++ using
>> GCC/FSF without trouble :)
> 
> Well, perhaps millions of people were freely using Linux without trouble until
> SCO made some claims.

Yes, SCO tried to persuade Gnu/Linux distributors into providing just 
the kind of indemnification that Samuel mentioned. And how successful 
were they?

I seem to recall that they did manage to trick a couple end users into 
buying their license, but millions minus two is still millions.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Stephen Leake]

Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:

>>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:
>
> Pascal> Samuel Tardieu a �crit :
>>> Well, not only, AdaCore also sells a non-GPL version of the
>>> compiler with the guarantee that it is ok to use it in a
>>> proprietary context.
>
> Pascal> Isn't this the case with GNAT/FSF too ?
>
> No: the FSF doesn't give you a *guarantee* (in the form of a signed
> document). If someone stands up and says "you cannot use this part of
> GNAT in a proprietary context because I have a copyright on this part
> and didn't allow it to be used in such context", AdaCore would handle
> the problem and deal with the claim (if you have the signed
> guarantee), while you have no such guarantee with the FSF.

There is not a signed document between each user and the FSF, but the
FSF does defend it's copyright on gcc components, and is careful about
getting ownership of the code.

So it's not as bad as using Linux.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Michael Bode]

Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

>> OK, but if I want to buy licence for 2 seats with no support at all I can't
>
> Of course since AdaCore is selling support :)
>
> In your case use the GNAT/FSF version. There is no support.

... and no GUI toolkit. PC software recently tends towards having a
GUI. A trend that Ada programmers might want to follow.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Pascal Obry]

Michael Bode a �crit :

> .... and no GUI toolkit. PC software recently tends towards having a
> GUI. A trend that Ada programmers might want to follow.

Looks like everybody is working hard to depict the situation as bad as
possible :(

https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Michael Bode]

Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

> Looks like everybody is working hard to depict the situation as bad as
> possible :(
>
> https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/

GPL-only. So it is not suitable for general commercial use. If one
wants to *buy* OSS software development tools *without* support, it is
probably because he has a problem with the license. Otherwise he would
get the software for media cost and buy the support.

I don't want to criticize anyone, there simply is something I don't
understand:

it is said that the customers of some Ada toolset are glad to pay $$$$
for the excellent support. If they need this kind of support to
maintain their productivity, they would not buy the same toolset
without support even if it would be sold for $$, right? After all it's
the support that they need. 

So selling the same software for $$ would not result in lost revenue,
because existing and new customers in need for support would buy the
$$$$ version anyway. It would not result in additional support cost,
because there is no support. It would not result in additional
development cost, because the software is already there. It would not
result in additional distribution cost, because there is already a
download site for a GPL version. The only additional cost I can see is
the cost of collecting the money from buyers. Assuming $$ is more than
what it costs to cash in $$ there is some (maybe small) net profit and
a chance to get more people interested in commercial development with
said Ada toolset. Where is my error?

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Randy Brukardt]

"Michael Bode" <m.g.bode@web.de> wrote in message
news:eh0qfk$7hu$1@online.de...
> Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:
...
> So selling the same software for $$ would not result in lost revenue,
> because existing and new customers in need for support would buy the
> $$$$ version anyway. It would not result in additional support cost,
> because there is no support. It would not result in additional
> development cost, because the software is already there. It would not
> result in additional distribution cost, because there is already a
> download site for a GPL version. The only additional cost I can see is
> the cost of collecting the money from buyers. Assuming $$ is more than
> what it costs to cash in $$ there is some (maybe small) net profit and
> a chance to get more people interested in commercial development with
> said Ada toolset. Where is my error?

I think you're working from a fallacy here. You cannot sell software without
at least limited support. When you sell something, it has to (within reason)
do what it is supposed to do. That's likely to require at least fixing some
bugs (or refunding some payments). And that will cost some money. Whereas,
when you get it for free, there is no such implied expectation -- if the
compiler you download won't compile a generic, you just have to work around
it or pay someone for support.

Now, you might say that Microsoft doesn't seem to do that. But that's not
really relevant (and they do provide some limited support, too) -- they are
in a much better position to deal with any legal issues and/or customer
unhappiness issues that come up. Smaller companies simply can't afford it -- 
unhappy customers are very bad for business.

So, I expect that AdaCore thinks that selling compilers with limited support
for $$ will either cannibalize they're other business (because some of those
customers only need the limited support) or that they will need to provide
$$$ worth of support -- which doesn't make sense. "No support" is only an
option for "free", not $$.

                               Randy.

Re: Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?

[Michael Bode]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> I think you're working from a fallacy here. You cannot sell software without
> at least limited support. When you sell something, it has to (within reason)
> do what it is supposed to do. That's likely to require at least fixing some
> bugs (or refunding some payments). And that will cost some money.

The bugs have to be fixed anyway for the supported customers. But you
are right that I have overlooked the need for some phone/email support
where the $$ customers can complain if something doesn't work.

-- 
Michael Bode