a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6) - SCO

This is a discussion on a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6) - SCO ; Compiling groff-1.19.1: checking for gcc... no checking for cc... cc checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of executables... checking for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

  1. a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    Compiling groff-1.19.1:

    checking for gcc... no
    checking for cc... cc
    checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    checking for suffix of executables...
    checking for suffix of object files... o
    checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    checking for g++... no
    checking for c++... no
    checking for gpp... no
    checking for aCC... no
    checking for CC... CC
    checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required

    -3-

  2. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    third@whasup.com wrote:
    > Compiling groff-1.19.1:
    >
    > checking for gcc... no
    > checking for cc... cc
    > checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    > checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    > checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    > checking for suffix of executables...
    > checking for suffix of object files... o
    > checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    > checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    > checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    > checking for g++... no
    > checking for c++... no
    > checking for gpp... no
    > checking for aCC... no
    > checking for CC... CC
    > checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    > checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    > checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    > configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required


    Check whether the OSR6 Dev Sys C++ compiler is installed correctly:

    150$ cat hello.cpp
    #include

    int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello, standard C++!" << std::endl;
    }
    151$ /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    152$ ./a.out
    Hello, standard C++!

    If it can't do this, then the install must have been botched somehow.
    Reinstall the OSR6 Dev Sys. If it can do this, then the ./configure
    for this groff package is badly confused.

    Jonathan Schilling


  3. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    As per jlselsewhere@my-deja.com (jlselsewhere@my-deja.com):

    > third@whasup.com wrote:
    > > Compiling groff-1.19.1:
    > >
    > > checking for gcc... no
    > > checking for cc... cc
    > > checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    > > checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    > > checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    > > checking for suffix of executables...
    > > checking for suffix of object files... o
    > > checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    > > checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    > > checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    > > checking for g++... no
    > > checking for c++... no
    > > checking for gpp... no
    > > checking for aCC... no
    > > checking for CC... CC
    > > checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    > > checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    > > checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    > > configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required

    >
    > Check whether the OSR6 Dev Sys C++ compiler is installed correctly:
    >
    > 150$ cat hello.cpp
    > #include
    >
    > int main() {
    > std::cout << "Hello, standard C++!" << std::endl;
    > }
    > 151$ /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > 152$ ./a.out
    > Hello, standard C++!
    >
    > If it can't do this, then the install must have been botched somehow.
    > Reinstall the OSR6 Dev Sys. If it can do this, then the ./configure
    > for this groff package is badly confused.


    # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.

    Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my 5.07,
    which was accepted.

    -3-

  4. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    wrote in message news:ddj0ns$5pc$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > As per jlselsewhere@my-deja.com (jlselsewhere@my-deja.com):
    >
    >> third@whasup.com wrote:
    >> > Compiling groff-1.19.1:
    >> >
    >> > checking for gcc... no
    >> > checking for cc... cc
    >> > checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    >> > checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    >> > checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    >> > checking for suffix of executables...
    >> > checking for suffix of object files... o
    >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    >> > checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    >> > checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    >> > checking for g++... no
    >> > checking for c++... no
    >> > checking for gpp... no
    >> > checking for aCC... no
    >> > checking for CC... CC
    >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    >> > checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    >> > checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    >> > configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required

    >>
    >> Check whether the OSR6 Dev Sys C++ compiler is installed correctly:
    >>
    >> 150$ cat hello.cpp
    >> #include
    >>
    >> int main() {
    >> std::cout << "Hello, standard C++!" << std::endl;
    >> }
    >> 151$ /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    >> 152$ ./a.out
    >> Hello, standard C++!
    >>
    >> If it can't do this, then the install must have been botched somehow.
    >> Reinstall the OSR6 Dev Sys. If it can do this, then the ./configure
    >> for this groff package is badly confused.

    >
    > # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.
    >
    > Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my 5.07,
    > which was accepted.
    >
    > -3-


    The 5.0.7 Development license is accepted, but doesn't work.
    Use the 60-day eval license provided in the Media Kit as a temporary
    workaround. Remove the 5.0.7 license first.

    Bob



  5. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    [ This thread belongs in comp.unix.sco.programmer, so I
    have entered a Followup-To: Header to that effect ].

    third@whasup.com typed (on Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:27:40PM +0000):
    |
    | # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    | UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.
    |
    | Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my 5.07,
    | which was accepted.

    The bad news is that I too tried to use a 5.0.7 DevSys License for the
    6.0.0 DevSys during the beta-testing of 6.0.0, and was told by a SCO
    engineer:

    > [ There's a ] problem with the license manager: When it's
    > run by custom as part of a product installation, all it wants
    > is for you to enter a valid license... it doesn't give a
    > fig whether it's a valid license *for the product you're
    > installing*. You could have entered a user bump, and it still
    > would have accepted it. The devsys itself, however, won't
    > work. That'll need to be addressed in a future release.


    The good news is that while the 5.0.x DevSys License cost $599, the
    6.0.0 DevSys License is $99.

    --
    JP

  6. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    third@whasup.com wrote:
    >
    > # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.
    >
    > Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my 5.07,
    > which was accepted.


    OSR 5.0.7 licenses are not supposed to work here. The enforcement
    check
    is at runtime, not install time, so this is behaving as intended.

    The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    bought
    new, but the price is very low.

    Jonathan Schilling


  7. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    As per Bob Bailin (72027.3605@compuserve.com):

    >
    > wrote in message news:ddj0ns$5pc$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > > As per jlselsewhere@my-deja.com (jlselsewhere@my-deja.com):
    > >
    > >> third@whasup.com wrote:
    > >> > Compiling groff-1.19.1:
    > >> >
    > >> > checking for gcc... no
    > >> > checking for cc... cc
    > >> > checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    > >> > checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    > >> > checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    > >> > checking for suffix of executables...
    > >> > checking for suffix of object files... o
    > >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    > >> > checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    > >> > checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    > >> > checking for g++... no
    > >> > checking for c++... no
    > >> > checking for gpp... no
    > >> > checking for aCC... no
    > >> > checking for CC... CC
    > >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    > >> > checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    > >> > checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    > >> > configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required
    > >>
    > >> Check whether the OSR6 Dev Sys C++ compiler is installed correctly:
    > >>
    > >> 150$ cat hello.cpp
    > >> #include
    > >>
    > >> int main() {
    > >> std::cout << "Hello, standard C++!" << std::endl;
    > >> }
    > >> 151$ /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > >> 152$ ./a.out
    > >> Hello, standard C++!
    > >>
    > >> If it can't do this, then the install must have been botched somehow.
    > >> Reinstall the OSR6 Dev Sys. If it can do this, then the ./configure
    > >> for this groff package is badly confused.

    > >
    > > # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > > UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.
    > >
    > > Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my 5.07,
    > > which was accepted.
    > >


    > The 5.0.7 Development license is accepted, but doesn't work.
    > Use the 60-day eval license provided in the Media Kit as a temporary
    > workaround. Remove the 5.0.7 license first.


    I see. Thanks. Could you tell me where exactly in the Media Kit I
    can find the temporary license?

    -3-

  8. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    In article <1123876569.339630.319890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com> "jlselsewhere@my-deja.com" writes:
    $ If it can do this, then the ./configure
    $for this groff package is badly confused.

    Two comments about this (not aimed at jlselsewhere in particular):

    1. Since OSR6 came out, there have been a number of posts in
    this newsgroup about stuff which compiled fine on OSR5 but which
    produces errors on OSR6. Often, setting the compiler into OSR5
    compatibility mode fixes this. I wouldn't expect an auto-configure
    script to know how to do this. In general, I wouldn't expect
    an auto-configure script to understand a new platform with a
    significant change in its environment, and OSR6's development
    system constitutes a significant change relative to OSR5's dev sys.
    Look through some of the older posts and you may get some ideas
    of how to approach this.

    2. I've met a number of auto-configure scripts which appear to
    have been written by Gnu/Linux folks who have heard vague rumours
    that there are non-Linux Unix OSes out there, and that there are
    actually C compilers which aren't gcc out there. But it seems they've
    never actually met a non-Gnu compiler or a non-Linux system, and it
    seems they didn't think that perhaps their scripts ought to be tested
    on some of them. And therefore many auto-configure scripts have
    problems on non-Gnu/Linux platforms, particularly if you're trying to
    use the native compiler rather than gcc (or, even worse in the older
    OSR5 days, trying to convince one of these things that you wanted
    to use icc rather than cc or gcc!)
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn
    >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/

  9. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    In Stephen M. Dunn:

    [Snip...]

    > seems they didn't think that perhaps their scripts ought to be tested
    > on some of them. And therefore many auto-configure scripts have problems


    Take it up with Darl McBride; he's been real busy burning bridges to this
    entire Gnu/Linux community you seem so terribly in need of now.

    Otherwise, get off your butt and fix it yourself then GIVE IT BACK to the
    very community you appear to consider some sort of 3rd world sweatshop.

    You folks better get on with the 21st century, as it's not going to wait.

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  10. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    wrote in message news:ddktir$5ni$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > As per Bob Bailin (72027.3605@compuserve.com):
    >
    > >
    > > wrote in message

    news:ddj0ns$5pc$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > > > As per jlselsewhere@my-deja.com (jlselsewhere@my-deja.com):
    > > >
    > > >> third@whasup.com wrote:
    > > >> > Compiling groff-1.19.1:
    > > >> >
    > > >> > checking for gcc... no
    > > >> > checking for cc... cc
    > > >> > checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
    > > >> > checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    > > >> > checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    > > >> > checking for suffix of executables...
    > > >> > checking for suffix of object files... o
    > > >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... no
    > > >> > checking whether cc accepts -g... yes
    > > >> > checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    > > >> > checking for g++... no
    > > >> > checking for c++... no
    > > >> > checking for gpp... no
    > > >> > checking for aCC... no
    > > >> > checking for CC... CC
    > > >> > checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... no
    > > >> > checking whether CC accepts -g... no
    > > >> > checking that C++ compiler can compile simple program... no
    > > >> > configure: error: a working C++ compiler is required
    > > >>
    > > >> Check whether the OSR6 Dev Sys C++ compiler is installed correctly:
    > > >>
    > > >> 150$ cat hello.cpp
    > > >> #include
    > > >>
    > > >> int main() {
    > > >> std::cout << "Hello, standard C++!" << std::endl;
    > > >> }
    > > >> 151$ /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > > >> 152$ ./a.out
    > > >> Hello, standard C++!
    > > >>
    > > >> If it can't do this, then the install must have been botched somehow.
    > > >> Reinstall the OSR6 Dev Sys. If it can do this, then the ./configure
    > > >> for this groff package is badly confused.
    > > >
    > > > # /usr/ccs/bin/CC -g hello.cpp
    > > > UX:CC: ERROR: OpenServer 6.0 DevSys: Product is not licensed.
    > > >
    > > > Well, DevSys IS licensed and registered. The only thing - I used my

    5.07,
    > > > which was accepted.
    > > >

    >
    > > The 5.0.7 Development license is accepted, but doesn't work.
    > > Use the 60-day eval license provided in the Media Kit as a temporary
    > > workaround. Remove the 5.0.7 license first.

    >
    > I see. Thanks. Could you tell me where exactly in the Media Kit I
    > can find the temporary license?
    >
    > -3-


    On the 5.5" x 8.5" yellow piece of paper accompanying the sleeved CD's.

    Bob



  11. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Harold Stevens"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:46 PM
    Subject: Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    > In Stephen M. Dunn:
    >
    > [Snip...]
    >
    >> seems they didn't think that perhaps their scripts ought to be tested
    >> on some of them. And therefore many auto-configure scripts have problems

    >
    > Take it up with Darl McBride; he's been real busy burning bridges to this
    > entire Gnu/Linux community you seem so terribly in need of now.
    >
    > Otherwise, get off your butt and fix it yourself then GIVE IT BACK to the
    > very community you appear to consider some sort of 3rd world sweatshop.
    >
    > You folks better get on with the 21st century, as it's not going to wait.


    You have no idea what you're talking about. From what I can see, (since, I
    actually look) the people at SCO who do the porting/building of gnu apps
    work their tails off, and submit not only configure/makefile patches (which
    could be argued to only be helpful for themselves) back to all original
    sources, but bugfixes too.

    Many USERS think gnu software developers owe them great, bugfree, feature
    rich, blazingly fast and efficient software, followed by personal support
    from the original author, all for free. But that does not describe anyone at
    SCO nor any of the genuine followers of this group (ie: sco users) as far as
    I've ever seen.

    On the other hand, as long as we're slinging mud. Let's look at people in
    the holy Gnu/Linux community like the apcupsd author. Deliberately removing
    the sco ifdefs and other support from their app? How childish is that? They
    are the real counterproductive ones in my opinion. What community is that
    helping?

    I, as a user, never hurt him, but he hurt me. If hurting the users is an
    unavoidable consequence of the greater good of hurting SCO, well, his action
    didn't hurt SCO in the slightest either.
    Even though I want to use apcupsd, it didn't, hasn't, doesn't and won't
    affect my (and thus my many customers) buying decision in the slightest.
    Powerchute is a free download from the apc site and works well enough. For
    open source, Nut and other apps are also available. So it was just a silly
    pointless temper tantrum that didn't help anyone and so isn't justifiable by
    any moral or logical argument.

    Even if the software that was artificially de-supported happened to be
    something more important and had fewer alternatives available than a ups
    monitor, I'd still have to advise against running ones business on something
    where the provider (be they commercial or gnu) has done something like that
    to it's users for such personal emotional reasons. If that means buying
    something, then the cost is FAR less important than the stable and safe
    relationship.

    Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  12. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)

    In <044601c5a1cc$6627c590$6b00000a@venti> Brian K. White:

    > actually look) the people at SCO who do the porting/building of gnu apps
    > work their tails off, and submit not only configure/makefile patches


    I never said they didn't. What I said was you should not be surprised if
    Gnu/Linux developers are not exactly keen on getting involved with packs
    of rabid grasping PHBs like Darl McBride and Ralph Yarro. This is purely
    a case of once bitten, twice shy with anybody offering help anywhere for
    any reason. Jumpin'Jehosaphat they're supposed to just act like that bit
    about $699/CPU invoices based on lies over *nix never happened?

    Developers like Bela Lubkin have NEVER been a problem, so this is simply
    a very transparent strawman argument, and I'm not wasting time on it.

    It's the MANAGEMENT. Do you need this clue FedEx to you today, or what?

    > Many USERS think gnu software developers owe them great, bugfree, feature
    > rich, blazingly fast and efficient software, followed by personal support


    Again: you're completely out in the weeds with this. Where in the thread
    did this "freebie" red herring ever appear? You don't want to contribute
    back to Gnu/Linux, or prefer something other than GPL license, fine. But
    don't come whining about to demand YOU get the freebies when you are not
    working for/with cooperative and trustworthy MANAGEMENT from gitgo. That
    is not the way business is to be done with Gnu/Linux, thank $DEITY.

    So, you can't figure out how to mod a silly Gnu script? Then just don't.

    Repeating: it isn't about technology; it's about PHB liars and thieves.

    > the holy Gnu/Linux community like the apcupsd author. Deliberately removing
    > the sco ifdefs and other support from their app? How childish is that?


    You think a single UPS interface developer, for whatever reasons, taking
    out some boilerplate code, defines the entire Gnu/Linux community? These
    are things that really rock your world? You think you're helping rebuild
    those bridges McBride et al are hellbent burning the last two years? The
    naivety you possess is simply staggering, beyond your mewling.

    You paint with an ignorantly broad brush. I don't have time for it; ergo
    you and I are done now.



    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  13. Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Harold Stevens"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:01 PM
    Subject: Re: a working C++ compiler is required (openserver 6)


    > In <044601c5a1cc$6627c590$6b00000a@venti> Brian K. White:
    >
    >> actually look) the people at SCO who do the porting/building of gnu apps
    >> work their tails off, and submit not only configure/makefile patches

    >
    > I never said they didn't. What I said was you should not be surprised if
    > Gnu/Linux developers are not exactly keen on getting involved with packs
    > of rabid grasping PHBs like Darl McBride and Ralph Yarro. This is purely
    > a case of once bitten, twice shy with anybody offering help anywhere for
    > any reason. Jumpin'Jehosaphat they're supposed to just act like that bit
    > about $699/CPU invoices based on lies over *nix never happened?


    Fair enough, but what's that got to do with the 15 years worth of users out
    there?

    >> the holy Gnu/Linux community like the apcupsd author. Deliberately
    >> removing
    >> the sco ifdefs and other support from their app? How childish is that?

    >
    > You think a single UPS interface developer, for whatever reasons, taking
    > out some boilerplate code, defines the entire Gnu/Linux community? These
    > are things that really rock your world?


    Of course not. What, you never heard of an example? And ifdefs & other
    os-specific code isn't boilerplate, it's hard, go/no-go functionality.
    Not doing the work to add it, or even not accepting patches that someone
    else made, is one thing. Removing it when it was already there is nothing
    other than saying "SCO users may not use my program any more." in other
    words "I'm taking my marbles away." That's fine. He's allowed. But that is
    not community minded, which is one of the main claims on moral high ground
    put forth by gnu/linux advocates. In other words, I'm simply calling one gnu
    app author a hipocrite as an example to stop gnu hyper-advocates from
    getting away with deviating too far from reality. Nothing more. Certainly
    not that this program is a large part of my world.

    > You think you're helping rebuild
    > those bridges McBride et al are hellbent burning the last two years?


    Well, all I can do is compare actions against actions. While apcupsd author
    is stripping sco support code from his app making it unavailable to sco
    users, I am building nut and making it available to users.
    As it happens, far from being a big deal to me, it's actually so small that
    I don't have time to play with it. I've compiled nut on sco but don't have
    time to figure out how to use it since as I mentioned, powerchute is freely
    available and works fine (merely it's more limited in what it does) and is
    simpler to use (or I just happen to be used to it since all my boxes have
    always used it). When I've had a chance to prove that my build actually
    works ok, I'll toss the binaries up on my site along with everything else
    I've built for sco that isn't available in a better form somewhere else.

    What I haven't done is written something that is generally useful and then
    artificially engineered it so that it can't be used by linux users.

    >


    ROFLMAO
    Ok this is just too funny.
    You imply that you are so enlightened and swell, and/or I'm so stupid and
    backwards, that any further communication is so impossible, so pointless,
    that you might as well just ignore my posts utterly from now on. Nothing I
    could possibly say could have any slightest value. Or else you'd just
    mentally ignore rather than relying on the crutch of a mail filter.
    OK that's fine. But then why make a show of telling me about it? You claim,
    by plonkinging, that you don't care what I think, yet you prove, by
    plonking, that you do care what I think. Specifically, You want to deliver a
    personal insult. That is the only possible functional result of telling me.
    OK that's fine too. Except it kind of pops your balloon about being the
    enlightened one in this little spit-ball war.
    That's been the case every time I ever saw the word used too and it's just
    so ridiculous that the users of the term don't get it. It's like saying you
    don't have a temper and you'll kill anyone who says otherwise.

    Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  14. Price of OS 6 Development System

    jlselsewhere@my-deja.com wrote:

    > The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    > bought
    > new, but the price is very low.
    >
    > Jonathan Schilling
    >


    On the price list I have, it is listed as a promotional price;
    supposedly to expire June 30th (which obviously has passed).

    Is that $99.00 now the going forward price or is it still a promo?

    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get published: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

  15. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:31:33 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    wrote:

    | jlselsewhere@my-deja.com wrote:
    |
    | > The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    | > bought
    | > new, but the price is very low.
    | >
    | > Jonathan Schilling
    | >
    |
    | On the price list I have, it is listed as a promotional price;
    | supposedly to expire June 30th (which obviously has passed).
    |
    | Is that $99.00 now the going forward price or is it still a promo?

    Hi Tony,

    On the price list I have here (United Kingdom, Aug 2005) it states
    that the promotional price of 82 GBP will remain until 30th June
    2006.

    Regards,

    Robin.
    --
    Robin Grayson

  16. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System

    Robin Grayson wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:31:33 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    > wrote:
    >
    > | jlselsewhere@my-deja.com wrote:
    > |
    > | > The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    > | > bought
    > | > new, but the price is very low.
    > | >
    > | > Jonathan Schilling
    > | >
    > |
    > | On the price list I have, it is listed as a promotional price;
    > | supposedly to expire June 30th (which obviously has passed).
    > |
    > | Is that $99.00 now the going forward price or is it still a promo?
    >
    > Hi Tony,
    >
    > On the price list I have here (United Kingdom, Aug 2005) it states
    > that the promotional price of 82 GBP will remain until 30th June
    > 2006.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Robin.



    Ahh - the 2006 must have got cut off mine..

    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get published: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

  17. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:46:56 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    wrote:

    |
    | Ahh - the 2006 must have got cut off mine..
    |

    There's unfortunately no indication of what it is likely to go up to
    after the promotional period though.
    --
    Robin Grayson

  18. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System

    Robin Grayson wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:31:33 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    > wrote:
    >
    > | jlselsewhere@my-deja.com wrote:
    > |
    > | > The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    > | > bought
    > | > new, but the price is very low.
    > | >
    > | > Jonathan Schilling
    > | >
    > |
    > | On the price list I have, it is listed as a promotional price;
    > | supposedly to expire June 30th (which obviously has passed).
    > |
    > | Is that $99.00 now the going forward price or is it still a promo?
    >
    > On the price list I have here (United Kingdom, Aug 2005) it states
    > that the promotional price of 82 GBP will remain until 30th June
    > 2006.


    Same story in the US, $99 until 30 June 2006.

    Jonathan Schilling


  19. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Robin Grayson"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:57 AM
    Subject: Re: Price of OS 6 Development System


    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:46:56 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    > wrote:
    >
    > |
    > | Ahh - the 2006 must have got cut off mine..
    > |
    >
    > There's unfortunately no indication of what it is likely to go up to
    > after the promotional period though.



    Maybe it'll be like the chocolate ration in 1984, which increased from 35 to
    25 grams per week.

    --
    Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  20. Re: Price of OS 6 Development System

    Tony Lawrence wrote:
    > Robin Grayson wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:31:33 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> | jlselsewhere@my-deja.com wrote:
    >> | | > The OSR6 DevSys does not have an upgrade license either; it must be
    >> | > bought
    >> | > new, but the price is very low.
    >> | > | > Jonathan Schilling
    >> | > | | On the price list I have, it is listed as a promotional price;
    >> | supposedly to expire June 30th (which obviously has passed).
    >> | | Is that $99.00 now the going forward price or is it still a promo?
    >>
    >> Hi Tony,
    >>
    >> On the price list I have here (United Kingdom, Aug 2005) it states
    >> that the promotional price of 82 GBP will remain until 30th June
    >> 2006.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Robin.

    >
    >
    >
    > Ahh - the 2006 must have got cut off mine..
    >


    Hi all,

    Can anybody provide a link to this price list or any other info?

    Thanks



    --
    Ygnacio Moreno.

    Please remove 'TheObvious' from email address to reply.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast