At 3:42 PM -0500 7/19/99, Robert Semenoff wrote:
>>>>At 12:09 PM -0500 7/19/99, WhiteMoor Studio wrote:
>>>>>First, I am not a user of MySQL (yet?). But I have a question. Why do
>>>>>to pay a licence fee for a Microsoft OS while I don't have to pay for
>>>>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.
>Not everyone considers their own time and effort to be free. I sure don't.
>For one thing, Unix is a !#@$ to install, certainly nowhere near as easy as
I didn't say the developers consider their time and effort to be free.
I said in fact they consider it more difficult to develop under Windows
than under UNIX.
re: installing UNIX vs. Windows - that's a debate that could probably
continue for some time. My own experience is that once you install
UNIX, at least it stays installed and doesn't destroy itself every now
Your experience may be different, of course.
>>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.
>Compilers and tool packages are priced on the order of $1000. Developers
>and consultants are on the order of $100/hour. Any non-trivial application
>takes weeks to months just for development, never mind design and testing.
True. However, in our discussions of the licensing issue, Monty himself
cited cost of Microsoft OS and development tools as a significant issue.
Not the only one, but it was an issue.
>>>>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.
>Just a different set of problems. Unix software doesn't write itself either.
But - and don't get me wrong in saying this - your opinion is irrevelant here.
You're not developing MySQL. The MySQL developers are, and they find it
a lot easier to develop under UNIX than under Windows. You and I could
go back and forth on this, but the only thing that counts here is the
>>>>Why do you ask?
>>>How about "It doesn't seem like a fair policy".
>>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?
>Respect and Admiration should be more than enough. Anyways, money is the
>root of all evil you know.
I suppose the flippant answer to that would be, "well, then, why is it
so important to you to hang onto the two hundred bucks a Windows license
would set you back?"
Another reply is that the developers' time is a fixed commodity, and some
incentive must exist for them to spend time doing Windows work.
I guess one thing that mystifies me about this whole issue is that
the license is $200, and in the Windows world people are used to paying
that all the time. What makes it such a big deal? $200 for a high-quality
database is nothing.
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped