Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (ASCEND) "Free" Software vs. Licensed (was "analyse RADIUS logs")

James Fischer wrote:
> 
>         Well, it is obvious that Dale makes money selling software
>         which would not even exist if not for the original (public
>         domain) Radius.  Dale should be forgiven for having a vested
>         interest in promoting the one platform for which he has a
>         product.  Much like Ascend's "supported version" of Radius,
>         Dale's Radius most likely:

The above is very opionated and lot of sarcasm on something you 
don't know much about (which you admit to below).  I talk about
things I have experience in for many years.
 
>                 a)  Costs money (one would presume that the customer
>                     is paying for the "added value", not the freely
>                     available baseline Radius code, but this is not
>                     known to me)

So why comment on it?  RadiusNT and Emerald are un-matched on ANY
platform,
UNIX or NT, for what it does.  I chose NT because thats what I knew and
what market we went for.  There are other reasons, but I won't bore you
with our reasons.

>                 b)  Is supported by the vendor (as opposed to being
>                     supported by the usual consortium of users and
>                     contributors to a gnu or other public domain
>                     work)
> 
>         For some customers, this appears to be an advantage.

And for others its not.  Therfore some go with commercial, others don't.
Thats all my point was.
 
>         The contention made by Dale - that "Unix" means "Linux", and
>         all Unix software must be "free" to have "market share" confuses
>         many issues:

Again, not really what I said.  Most people countering what we offer
start with price.  Something like "why buy NT, SQL Server, and all that 
when I can get Linux on cheap pentiums with free software"?  There are
two kinds of ISPs:  Big and Small.  The big ones have commercial
products
and large systems (ie, money).  The small ones penny pinch and use as
much
free software as they can.  Thats the facts.

I don't want to argue an OS war here so please don't.
 
> 
>                              Commercialization of the net is a recent fad,
>                              and this too will pass.  The net was built via
>                              standards and cooperation.  If the interlopers
>                              think that they can "get rich quick" think that
>                              they know better, good for them.  I for one
>                              have no intention of ignoring a fellow
>                              professional's request for assistance, since I
>                              (like everyone) have benefited much more than
>                              I have contributed.

That is really being blind.  As I said earlier, there are two kinds of
ISPs,
Big and Small.  Big ISPs do *NOT* use public domain software to run
their
companies.  They buy multi-million dollar software packages with hefty
support tags simply because they can't afford to ask a list when
something
breaks (and hope that someone else has encountered that problem).
They call their support rep and get it fixed.  Small ISPS typically
do follow what you say, though.

>                         3c)  Public domain software comes with SOURCE CODE.
>                              One is not a prisoner of a vendor's revision
>                              cycles and mixed agendas.  If you want to add
>                              or modify, you can.  This goes right down from
>                              the application to the Unix kernel, since even
>                              commercial vendors of Unix DO have the ability
>                              to license the source code, and have had this
>                              ability since day one.

Again, this is assuming the company has the expertise to do this
kind of stuff.  Not all have that kind of fluent talent to modify
kernals and add extensive and complex patched to software. They just
need something they can buy and it will work.

>                5)   Attempts have been made to create internet servers on
>                     Windows NT.  While this may seem like a great idea,
>                     one would hope that at least Microsoft Network would
>                     have put its network where its mouth is, and use
>                     Microsoft's product.  Humorously, they only recently
>                     stopped using Unix (in at least the most obvious places)
>                     and started using NT at all.  They still do not use the
>                     product that Microsoft wishes to market to other ISPs.

Although we use WindowsNT, we don't use any of Microsoft Products that
are
internet based.  MS still hasn't gotten much right in as many attempts
as
they have had.  Please don't get me wrong, as I am NOT a big MS fan for
their
internet tools.
 
>                         Web Week, July 21, 1997 - Page 26:
> 
>                         "Curiously, MSN doesn't use the Microsoft commercial
>                         Internet System (MCIS), a suite of communications
>                         servers marketed to ISPs, which Microsoft has said
>                         is based upon the server software developed for MSN."

MCIS is really a big joke MS is trying to play.  We use the mature tools
that
have been available for years, many of which are made by reputable
companies.

>                    I for one, am not going to trust a product that cannot
>                    even be sold to a captive customer.  If MSN won't use
>                    Microsoft's product, why should we?

This is what I love about people in this discussion.  Now you are
implying that 
I am selling MS?  This is getting funnier as I go.  Lets stick to the
original
topic and not bring all this other trash in, ok?  Never once did mention
or
allude to this stuff.
 
>                6)  There is a great push from recent arrivals, wannabes,
>                    and "suits" with no sense of history or perspective
>                    to try to make running an internet site something
>                    that can be done by inexperienced/untrained personnel.

We have a "suite" not suits. :) Its been around for well over two years.
We are not a recent arrival, and so far we are THE leader in this
industry
for what we are doing.  MCIS could be considered our only other
contender
but that would require it to work.
 
>         Hey - I charge serious bucks for "wisdom" like the above, and
>         people willingly pay it.  But here, I offer it freely to my
>         fellow professionals.  Ain't the net neat?

Nothing personal, but your "wisdom" is pretty opinionated and lacks 
a lot of research and understanding.  We have been in the market for 
well over two years and I "know" what the people who I talk to want.
Even those who do not use our products (the side you support) talk
to us a lot so that we know what the other side is like.  I am not 
saying you are wrong, just that you are only talking about one side 
of this.
 
-- 
Dale E. Reed Jr.  (daler@iea.com)
_________________________________________________________________
       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs
 Internet Solutions for Today  |   http://www.iea-software.com
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
Follow-Ups: References: