🚀 go-pugleaf

** Please send all further comments to the list cren-list@cren.org.  Thanks. **

>X-Resent-From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
>X-Resent-To:   JBC@BITNIC.EDUCOM.EDU
>Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 1994 13:17:31 -0500
>
>Please repost my message to the BITNEWS and TECHNEWS lists.
>
>  Eric
>
>*---------------------- Original message follows -----------------------*
>
>All the views  expressed in this message represent the  opinion of L-Soft
>international, Inc. ("L-Soft").
>
>On Wed, 23 Mar 1994 11:40:02 -0500 Jim Conklin
><CONKLIN@BITNIC.EDUCOM.EDU> said:
>
>>L-Soft has published its development plan which indicates that its first
>>Unix product is probably at least a  year away, behind a VMS and Windows
>>NT version in priority, and its price is unknown.
>
>I must take public objection  at this incredible piece of misinformation.
>I can only hope that it was an accident, and that CREN will promptly send
>an apology to all the recipients of the original message.
>
>L-Soft's plans  for unix (and VMS/NT)  were made public in  August, 1993.
>Over a hundred people have asked L-Soft for a copy and can testify to its
>contents.  A  printout was  handed  out  to CREN's  President,  Executive
>Director and to  Jim Conklin in September 1st, 1993,  during a meeting in
>Copenhagen with  the EARN Executive.  Slides with a condensed  version of
>that information were shown during the meeting.
>
>The availability date for the first unix version is "early 1Q95". That is
>not "probably at least a year away",  but about a month later than CREN's
>ListProc plan. "Probably at least a year away" would means "March 1995 or
>even later", ie 2Q95.
>
>The unix version is not behind the NT version in priority. The NT version
>has the lowest priority, and is not expected before 4Q95. Please refer to
>the charts in the August plan.
>
>The first VMS version is expected 4Q94.  In general, the VMS version is a
>month to  a quarter early,  as better  debugging tools are  available for
>VMS. Since  most of  the code  is shared  between the  4 versions,  it is
>simply more  cost-effective for us to  release the VMS version  first and
>take  advantage  of the  powerful  VMS  debugger  to  solve most  of  the
>problems. This lets us solve problems  faster and deliver working code to
>our customers sooner.
>
>The fact that  the price is unknown should not  be surprising, given that
>the product  has not  been announced.  It is  customary in  the computing
>industry to publish prices along with the formal product announcement. It
>is unusual  for products to  be announced more  than 6 months  before the
>release date.  In fact, it is  a dangerous practice to  announce products
>one year or more  in advance. You only need to open a  PC magazine to see
>how many lawyers are making a living out of these early announcements.
>
>CREN did not approach L-Soft to attempt to negotiate a collective license
>for the future unix product. The EARN Association successfully negotiated
>an agreement last  July that will grant them unlimited  access to the VMS
>version,  when it  becomes available.  Thus, there  is a  clear precedent
>showing  that L-Soft  is not  in  principle unwilling  to negotiate  such
>agreements.
>
>>We had hoped to include LISTSERV TCP/IP in our agreement with L-Soft but
>>L-Soft has chosen to make it  a separate product requiring a new license
>>and the  cost of that  license is  currently scaled to  mainframe rather
>>that workstation software prices.
>
>CREN had indeed  hoped to include LISTSERV-TCP/IP at a  licensing cost of
>$0.00 per unit, an offer which we turned down for reasons that I am sure
>I do not need  to clarify. I must point out that  CREN never attempted to
>negotiate the  purchase of LISTSERV-TCP/IP  licenses at a  reduced price;
>they felt it  should have been free,  and since it wasn't,  they were not
>interested in pursuing the issue.
>
>While  CREN  is of  course  entitled  to  its  own opinion  and  judgment
>regarding the price of our offerings, I would like to point out that most
>of our customers regard LISTSERV's price  scale as one order of magnitude
>below the costs  of typical mainframe software. In  fact, considering the
>fact that  LISTSERV is a  server rather  than a single-user  program, our
>prices are  in the same range  as many popular LAN  products for personal
>computers. This is a  simple fact that anyone can verify  by opening a PC
>magazine. I have  just done that myself and found  that our main package,
>which includes indefinite  right to use plus one year  of maintenance for
>LISTSERV-TCP/IP and  LMail, costs the  same as  a 250-user license  for a
>popular brand  of LAN  servers, and about  10% of the  cost of  a FORTRAN
>compiler on a mid-class mainframe. In fact, L-Soft prices are on the same
>order of  magnitude as  the CREN  membership dues  that will  finance the
>"free"  unix  list  manager  CREN   intends  to  make  available  to  its
>membership.  This, too,  is a  fact  that any  CREN member  can check  by
>comparing his CREN membership dues with our price list.
>
>>The  acquisition  of  ListProc  and   the  agreement  with  L-soft  both
>>contribute  to the  goal  in the  CREN strategic  plan  of helping  CREN
>>members migrate from NJE to TCP/IP.
>
>Could you explain how the acquisition of maintenance for LISTSERV-NJE and
>the  deliberate   non-acquisition  of   a  license   for  LISTSERV-TCP/IP
>contributed  to the  goal  in the  CREN strategic  plan  of helping  CREN
>members migrate from NJE to TCP/IP?
>
>After  having read  this message  three  times I  have no  option but  to
>consider the possibility that it might  have been a deliberate attempt at
>misrepresenting L-Soft's offering, views and position. The alternative is
>that CREN made a six-figure  purchase decision based on totally incorrect
>facts, when they  have been repeatedly provided  with correct information
>that was furthermore  available to the general public.  In particular the
>plans for the unix/VMS/NT development  were explained to CREN management,
>face-to-face and in a meeting that about 10 people attended.
>
>I   can  only   hope  that   CREN  will   promptly  apologize   for  this
>misrepresentation, and that this will not happen again.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>  Eric Thomas
>  Manager of Design and Development
>  L-Soft international, Inc.
>
>