🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Vic Abell <abe@purdue-asc.ARPA>

To suggest, as Henry Spencer does, that Sequent is using a system of
equations of the form:

	rich = integrity
	poor = dishonesty

to measure access to its sources is to ignore completely the issue of
protecting a valuable trade secret.

I speak as someone whose organization has a Balance 8000 installed, a
Balance 21000 on order, sources for Dynix 2.0.1, and experience with
multi-processor systems.  We have four dual VAXs of the Purdue design,
and several older CDC 6000 systems - 6500, 6600.  I have written a
multi-processor operating system for the CDC 6000s and have installed
George Goble's dual CPU UNIX system on the VAXs.

Someone who has does not have that kind of experience might not
appreciate that Dynix is an advanced and innovative multi-processor
operating system.  It is unique.  Sequent should not surrender its
competitive edge causually.

I think that Sequent has taken a reasonable approach - charge enough
for the advantage to recover its costs.  That's why Dynix is expensive;
that's why the HP-35 cost so much when it came out, etc., etc.  The
real equation is:

	price = cost of development

We spent a lot of time discussing this issue of access to sources with
Sequent.  They were informative discussions.  Sequent listened to us;
we listened to them.  In the end, we came to an arrangement that
satisfied both of us.  I'm sure that anyone else who might take the
time to do the same will be able to afford the Dynix sources.

Vic Abell, abe@asc.purdue.edu, ...!pur-ee!pucc-j!abe
Purdue University Computing Center