At 2:40 AM +0100 2000-01-24, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > Given that, why *shouldn't* they charge for the Windows server?
>> They have little use for it themselves, what could possibly be
>> the incentive to spend time on it?
>> The Windows users aren't paying for all the others. They're paying
>> for the version that the developers wouldn't otherwise spend time on,
>> and that wouldn't exist without some incentive to spend time on it.
>OK, the fact remains but apparently I'm barking up the wrong tree,
>as I said I *never* said that I did not want to pay, I do still mind
>that some people get it for free just because they are on another system.
I don't think I ever implied that you didn't want to pay. In your
very first message on this thread, you explicitly said you didn't mind
paying for it.
As for why you mind that it's free for some people, I don't really
know, and I can't imagine. The analogy given in another message, of
a guy who develops a Windows widget for his own use and gives it
away to Windows users but tells the guy who wants a Palm version will
have to pay for it to be ported, seems quite close to the situation
>The most reasonable, as other also pointed out as an answer to my mailing,
>is that everyone pay a small fee, not just some people.
That doesn't make sense. Then UNIX users would be paying to subsidize
Windows development, which is just the kind of thing you objected to in
an earlier message (only there it was in reverse, where you considered
Windows users to be paying to subsidize UNIX development).
>But...but...that's just my opinion, apparently other people don't mind
>paying for freebies, which of course is the effect with this kind of
Don't know what you mean by this statement, unless you're referring to
the apparent willingness of many UNIX users to pay for their version even
when they don't have to.
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped