🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6006@wolfen.cc.uow.oz> steve@wolfen.cc.uow.oz (Steve Cliffe) writes:
>Can someone please tell me why Sequent persists with the user-limit 
>concept.

This is because UNIX is ultimately licensed by AT&T. Sequent's agreement
with AT&T means that they have to pay AT&T royalties based on the number
of users of each system they sell. The N-user AT&T licences mean Sequent
supply N-user limited systems. 

I find it distasteful that this policy means that university departments
like ours have to pay enormous sums for a Sequent UNIX distribution
that's binary only. It is all the more galling when AT&T will gladly let us
have a source licence for the same machine for a few hundred dollars.
[OK, AT&T don't provide Sequent source code, but Sequent could supply
this for a nominal sum to people who had the right piece of paper from
AT&T.]

A better deal for academic DYNIX licensing is needed. How about it?

		Jim

PS: I know Sequent will release source, but the price is not all that
nominal. I suspect that the current conditions mean that a hefty sum for
the N-user licence would still have to be paid on top.

In article <6006@wolfen.cc.uow.oz> steve@wolfen.cc.uow.oz (Steve Cliffe) writes:
>Can someone please tell me why Sequent persists with the user-limit concept
>
>Pyramid dropped this quite a while ago and our Sun's have no such 
>limit...

I was told by Sequent that the user limit is part of the AT&T
license agreement (I have not independantly verified this).  We
currently have a 32 user license, we can upgrade to 64 users or
unlimited. I do not know why some other vendors do not use such 
a limit, but here is one possible way they could avoid it:

	Simply include a license sized appropiately to the
	machines maximum capacity.  A large system like a Pyramid
	might simply charge you for the max license on purchase.
	A small system like the SUN 386i may include a license
	that it would be impractical to  exceed based on system
	load/power.

If you want more users on your Sequent, just buy a license for
more users!  

I'd rather pay for what I need and know what I got.

-- 
Richard Perlman * perl@pbseps.pacbell.com || {ames,sun,att}!pacbell!pbseps!perl
180 New Montgomery St. rm 602,   San Francisco, CA  94105  |*|  1(415) 545-0233

In article <633@pbseps.UUCP> perl@pbseps.PacBell.COM (Richard Perlman) writes:
>I was told by Sequent that the user limit is part of the AT&T license
>agreement....  I do not know why some other vendors do not use such a limit,
>but here is one possible way they could avoid it: Simply include a license
>sized appropiately to the machines maximum capacity.  A large system like a
>Pyramid might simply charge you for the max license on purchase.

Both Pyramid and Sun used to have number-of-user licenses, since that was the
way AT&T billed for it. But AT&T abadoned this licensing scheme years ago.
Once AT&T dropped it, both Pyramid and Sun immediately dropped it too, since
the customers didn't like it and it was a hassle to maintain. BTW, as far as
I know, neither old OSx or SunOS had anything to enforce the user limit.

<csg>

In article <294@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk writes:
>I find it distasteful that this policy means that university departments
>like ours have to pay enormous sums for a Sequent UNIX distribution
>that's binary only. It is all the more galling when AT&T will gladly let us
>have a source licence for the same machine for a few hundred dollars.

I don't purport to speak for Sequent, but if I were in their shoes, I'd
keep tight control on the parallel kernel sources.  As far as I can tell,
that's where most of their technology edge lies; it's my opinion that
Sequent's kernel is the cleanest/most elegant/best multiprocessor Unix
kernel on the market. (Yes, I've read the sources; the site at which I
used to work had a Dynix source license and I signed the non-disclosure
agreement.)  I guess I see it as a key point of Sequent's competitiveness.

One approach which will partially solve your problem would to buy an
AT&T source license and then send it (with whatever fee it is these days)
to Berkeley for a 4.3 BSD source tape.  At the utility level, the BSD
and Dynix distributions are reasonably close.  I know that this isn't
an all-encompassing solution to the problem, but it may help.

---Rsk

>I don't purport to speak for Sequent, but if I were in their shoes, I'd
>keep tight control on the parallel kernel sources.

Actually, *any* kernel sources. There is a lot of value-added that can be
done to the UNIX kernel. Stright multiprocessing isn't very special any more
(and for that matter, Dynix isn't doing anything particularly unusual). But
there is a lot of closely-guarded stuff regarding scheduling algorithms (for
CPU, I/O, and Disk), processor affinity, distribution of interrupts, costs of
context switches and cache/TLB flushes, and so on. Even SVR4 is a long way
from what I'd call a "commercial" UNIX; you have to add a lot to it to make
a production system. *That* is what gives companies their edge, and is why
most companies are so protective of their sources.

>it's my opinion that Sequent's kernel is the cleanest/most elegant/best
>multiprocessor Unix kernel on the market.

So how many *other* MP kernels have you seen? I suspect the UMAX and MACH
people would love to discuss this with you.

<csg>

In article <294@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:

   In article <6006@wolfen.cc.uow.oz> steve@wolfen.cc.uow.oz (Steve Cliffe) writes:
   >Can someone please tell me why Sequent persists with the user-limit 
   >concept.

   This is because UNIX is ultimately licensed by AT&T. Sequent's agreement
   with AT&T means that they have to pay AT&T royalties based on the number
   of users of each system they sell. The N-user AT&T licences mean Sequent
   supply N-user limited systems. 

Bogus idea. It has been long since AT&T has gone to very cheap
licensing; a 1-2 users royalty is $50 (fifty) and an unlimited
users license is $150 (one hundred fifty). Royalties for older
Unix versions (pre-system V) were both higher and more linked to
# of users, but still per-user royalties were very small.

It is simply that Sequent (like DEC for Ultrix, which used to
charge a few thousand dollars for each block of eight users
authorized) want to make money. You might want instead to
investigate on getting MACH sources for the Sequent, especially
if you are a University. Apparently, if you do it right, you can
even get it outside the USA. Contact the MACH people at CMU!
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk

In article <12288@boulder.Colorado.EDU> rsk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <294@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk writes:
>>I find it distasteful that this policy means that university departments
>>like ours have to pay enormous sums for a Sequent UNIX distribution
>>that's binary only. It is all the more galling when AT&T will gladly let us
>>have a source licence for the same machine for a few hundred dollars.
>
>One approach which will partially solve your problem would to buy an
>AT&T source license and then send it (with whatever fee it is these days)
>to Berkeley for a 4.3 BSD source tape.  At the utility level, the BSD
>and Dynix distributions are reasonably close.  I know that this isn't
>an all-encompassing solution to the problem, but it may help.

The 'problem' is not the availability or non-availablity of Sequent
source code. [We already have source code licences from AT&T and Berkeley
anyway.]

The problem is the anomalous way that licensing is handled. AT&T will give
source licences to educational users for a few hundred dollars. The same
educational users have to pay thousands of dollars in UNIX licence fees
(the bulk of which will ultimately go to AT&T) when they buy a system
like a Sequent. Why?

It is a Good and Noble Thing that AT&T supply cheap educational licences
for UNIX. It's a pity that UNIX vendors cannot do likewise, either because
they don't want to or because their agreements with AT&T prevent it.

		Jim

In article <86123@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:

>Both Pyramid and Sun used to have number-of-user licenses, since that was the
>way AT&T billed for it. But AT&T abadoned this licensing scheme years ago.

What is their licensing scheme based on nowadays?

-- 
          Robert Claeson      E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se
	  ERBE DATA AB

In article <PCG.89Oct3143413@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>You might want instead to
>investigate on getting MACH sources for the Sequent, especially
>if you are a University. Apparently, if you do it right, you can
>even get it outside the USA. Contact the MACH people at CMU!

Incorrect.  CMU, with the help of some Sequent developers, ported
a version to the Balance some years ago, but it is an old kernel
version and was never (for the most part) released externally.
As far as I know, CMU has not done a port to the Symmetry, and given
that mt. Xinu is taking over commercial distribution of Mach, I
wouldn't expect such a thing to occur.

The last time I talked to anybody at Sequent about Mach, the answer
I got was that, although certain parts of Mach (like the VM system)
would be explored, Sequent was quite happy with Dynix.

I don't believe that Mach sources are allowed to be exportedbinaries
I'm not sure about.  Somebody from mt. Xinu can enlighten us to that
regard.

... John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John R. Mudd                                     mudd-j@cis.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Computer and Information Science,  The Ohio State University
  2036 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, USA   43210-1277