At 2:41 PM -0500 7/19/99, Robert Semenoff wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul DuBois <paul@stripped>
>To: WhiteMoor Studio <info@stripped>; mysql@stripped
><mysql@stripped>
>Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:19 AM
>Subject: Re: pricing
>
>
>>At 12:09 PM -0500 7/19/99, WhiteMoor Studio wrote:
>>>Dear sir/madam,
>>>
>>>First, I am not a user of MySQL (yet?). But I have a question. Why do I
>have
>>>to pay a licence fee for a Microsoft OS while I don't have to pay for a
>non
>>>Microsoft OS?
>>
>>Short answer: it costs the developers money to develop MySQL on a
>
>Is that the answer or a guess ?
The MySQL developers can develop on UNIX for nothing. Linux can be
obtained free or for the cost of a CD. gcc/egcs ditto. Upgrades
are available on the same basis, even major ones.
Is Windows free? Are Windows upgrades free? Does Microsoft give
their compiler away? Do they provide upgrades for nothing?
>>non-free OS using non-free compilers and development tools, and that
>
>You have a skewed notion of where the costs of software development go.
Fair enough. Please elaborate.
>>cost has to be recovered somehow. It also costs the developers time
>>because Windows development is more difficult than UNIX development.
>
>I don't buy that.
Why not? You yourself say (below) that Windows isn't stable. That
in itself makes it more difficult to develop for.
>>Why do you ask?
>
>How about "It doesn't seem like a fair policy".
Why not?
The MySQL developers don't use Windows for their own work, they use
UNIX. Can you provide a reason why a Windows port should be provided
*for free*? What would be the motivation to do so?
>Although I think a better question would be Why would you want to try
>developing a stable database on top of an unstable OS.
Yes, there is that problem, too. It was implicit in the "Windows
development is more difficult than UNIX development" phrase.
--
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped
