OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? - VMS

This is a discussion on OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00??? - VMS ; On 7 Nov, 04:48, John Santos wrote: > craig.a.be...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 4, 6:09 pm, Len Whitwer wrote: > > >>Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a > >>list price of $2400.00. Installed on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80

Thread: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

  1. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of$2400.00???

    On 7 Nov, 04:48, John Santos wrote:
    > craig.a.be...@gmail.com wrote:
    > > On Nov 4, 6:09 pm, Len Whitwer wrote:

    >
    > >>Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a
    > >>list price of $2400.00. Installed on rx2620 system and can only get
    > >>"ONE USER" on system.

    >
    > > Somewhat counterintuitively, that's pretty much the definition of a
    > > concurrent use license for which you have not purchased extra units.
    > > Technically it's an activity license that allows a certain number of
    > > simultaneous uses and the default number of uses allowed is whatever
    > > quantity you ordered. *Naturally you ordered a quantity of one since
    > > you thought you were buying a compiler, but what you actually bought
    > > was the rights for one use of the compiler at a time. *If you had
    > > ordered a quantity of two, you'd be allowed two concurrent uses, and
    > > so on.

    >
    > > You can read up on license types here:

    >
    > >http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/83fina...ro_001.html#in...

    >
    > > Selling something called a "concurrent use" license where the default
    > > number of concurrent uses allowed is one is kind of like advertising
    > > an all-you-can-eat buffet where you have to pay again every time you
    > > go through the line. There's no rational way an uninitiated customer
    > > can figure out what they need by reading the product names. *Whoever
    > > is selling you this stuff should do a better job of explaining how the
    > > licensing works and making sure you get what you need.

    >
    > I had the exact same issue when specing a customer system. *Arrived,
    > installed, lo and behold, the 2nd user gets an error... (Don't remember
    > if it was a stack dump - that part of it sounds bogus.) *Since we only
    > do compiling at installation time and when fixing bugs, we decided to
    > live with it. *(We have DSPP on our development systems.)
    >
    > It was totally unclear that we were being quoted a single user license
    > when we ordered the systems. *We've only been using DEC/Compaq/HP
    > software for 37 years, so we don't have all the terminology down yet.
    >
    > I think there might be multiuser bundled prices that are significantly
    > cheaper, but don't know. *(For example, 5 users is much cheaper than
    > one user.)
    >
    > Last time we bought compiler licenses was for an Alpha, and IIRC,
    > the single user license for both BASIC and C was about $1500 and the
    > unlimited licenses were about $3500, so we went with unlimited.
    >
    > I thought $2400 was steep for a single user of a mature compiler,
    > but cheap for an unlimited license. *And we are also paying for
    > support as well, so not all the developer time comes out off the
    > license purchase pot. *Gee, we'd like to pay less. *Is there anyone
    > out there who wants to pay *more* for software? :-) :-) :-)
    >
    > So we whinge a bit and live with it.
    >
    > --
    > John Santos
    > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    > 781-861-0670 ext 539- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Having just checked SmartPortal in the UK, I don't see a price for an
    unlimited Basic license for Integrity. There's only the Concurrent
    user license.

    That was using the search string BASIC in the online price viewer...
    Steve

  2. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    > Having just checked SmartPortal in the UK, I don't see a price for an
    > unlimited Basic license for Integrity. There's only the Concurrent
    > user license.


    Which is exactly what the SPD for HP BASIC says.

    Jan-Erik.

  3. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???


    As for the compilers being linked with /TRACEBACK:

    Most of our compilers are linked /TRACEBACK so when real internal compiler
    errors occur, the traceback from the customer site can help us diagnose the
    problem before trying to cut down the program to something smaller (which
    sometimes isn't possible). For the missing license, linking with /TRACEBACK
    is a little unfortunate. We could try to catch that error in a handler but
    we've always had more important stuff to work on.

    As for the licenses:

    I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    say.

    John



  4. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    John Reagan wrote:

    > I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    > That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    > say.


    But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    gracefully when it is not good ?

    And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    available)

  5. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >John Reagan wrote:
    >
    >> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >> say.

    >
    >But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >gracefully when it is not good ?
    >
    >And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >available)


    Polling? How unixy.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  6. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > John Reagan wrote:
    >
    >> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >> say.

    >
    > But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    > compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    > gracefully when it is not good ?
    >
    > And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    > second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    > try again.


    Submitting on a compile-batch-queue is much better, you can
    set /JOB_LIMIT to the same number as the number of concurrent
    licenses available.

    Or (if you prefer polling for some reason) write a short
    COM file that runs the compiler and checks the status code
    and re-runs the compile if it tripped on the licens...

    It's far better for the compiler folks to focus on
    more important issues.

    Jan-Erik.

  7. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>John Reagan wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>> say.

    >>
    >>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>
    >>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>available)

    >
    > Polling? How unixy.


    Since when? Version 6?

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  8. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    wrote:

    > John Reagan wrote:
    >
    >> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >> them.
    >> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as
    >> they
    >> say.

    >
    > But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    > compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    > gracefully when it is not good ?
    >
    > And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    > second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    > try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    > begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    > value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    > available)


    I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had
    used the
    compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive
    rights
    for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.



    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  9. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>>John Reagan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>>> say.
    >>>
    >>>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>
    >>>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>available)

    >>
    >> Polling? How unixy.

    >
    >Since when? Version 6?


    Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  10. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of$2400.00???

    On Nov 5, 8:19*pm, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    > Len Whitwer wrote:
    >
    >
    > > > > Ordered HP Basic LTU for integrity BA347AC "concurrent license" at a
    > > > > list price of $2400.00. Installed on rx2620 system and can only get
    > > > > "ONE
    > > > > USER" on system.

    >
    > > > > Get following error when second user tries to use basic.

    >
    > > > > $ BAS OE001A

    >


    Wow! Someone is working with either TOLAS or the LIOCS software.



    > If the BASIC maintainer is lurking, you'll want to contact this user
    > off-list and get the remaining details. The trace-back and stack dump
    > are already here.


    Are the language maintainers even in this country anymore? Last I
    heard, HP no longer meets ITAR requirements for U.S. citizens working
    on their products.


  11. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    yyyc186 wrote:

    > Are the language maintainers even in this country anymore? Last I
    > heard, HP no longer meets ITAR requirements for U.S. citizens working
    > on their products.
    >


    Well, John Reagan can still type in intelligible english without a thick
    indian accent, so I assume he has not been moved to India or replaced by
    some indian worker assuming the "John Reagan" name on public forums :-)

    As to whether Mr Reagan is the only one left to maintain all of the
    compilers on VMS (except for PL1), that is another question.

  12. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???


    "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    news:0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > John Reagan wrote:
    >
    >> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >> them.
    >> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as
    >> they
    >> say.

    >
    > But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    > compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    > gracefully when it is not good ?


    SYS$LOOKUP_LICENSE signals errors instead of returning them. As I said,
    using LIB$SIG_TO_RET can help us easily detect it and then make some direct
    call to SYS$EXIT. Just never been high on my list.

    John



  13. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???


    "yyyc186" wrote in message
    news:2c2daad8-f3ec-457e-b92a-
    > If the BASIC maintainer is lurking, you'll want to contact this user
    > off-list and get the remaining details. The trace-back and stack dump
    > are already here.


    Are the language maintainers even in this country anymore? Last I
    heard, HP no longer meets ITAR requirements for U.S. citizens working
    on their products.


    I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate to
    prove it. There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    besides me.

    John



  14. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article , "John Reagan" writes:
    >
    >"JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >news:0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> John Reagan wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>> them.
    >>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as
    >>> they
    >>> say.

    >>
    >> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >> gracefully when it is not good ?

    >
    >SYS$LOOKUP_LICENSE signals errors instead of returning them. As I said,
    >using LIB$SIG_TO_RET can help us easily detect it and then make some direct
    >call to SYS$EXIT. Just never been high on my list.


    Curious, why SYS$LOOKUP_LICENSE and not SYS$GRANT_LICENSE?

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    .... pejorative statements of opinion are entitled to constitutional protection
    no matter how extreme, vituperous, or vigorously expressed they may be. (NJSC)

    Copr. 2008 Brian Schenkenberger. Publication of _this_ usenet article outside
    of usenet _must_ include its contents in its entirety including this copyright
    notice, disclaimer and quotations.

  15. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:14:46 -0800, VAXman- <@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:

    > In article , "John
    > Reagan" writes:
    >>
    >> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    >> news:0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>>> them.
    >>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade
    >>>> as
    >>>> they
    >>>> say.
    >>>
    >>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>> gracefully when it is not good ?

    >>
    >> SYS$LOOKUP_LICENSE signals errors instead of returning them. As I said,
    >> using LIB$SIG_TO_RET can help us easily detect it and then make some
    >> direct
    >> call to SYS$EXIT. Just never been high on my list.

    >
    > Curious, why SYS$LOOKUP_LICENSE and not SYS$GRANT_LICENSE?
    >


    Because it only works with DEC as the provider.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  16. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article ,
    "Tom Linden" writes:
    > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    > wrote:
    >
    >> John Reagan wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>> them.
    >>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as
    >>> they
    >>> say.

    >>
    >> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>
    >> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >> available)

    >
    > I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had
    > used the
    > compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive
    > rights
    > for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.


    I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened when
    they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago and
    when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun unbundling
    the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    limitation.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  17. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article <00A82514.67CBCF1B@sendspamhere.org>,
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > In article <6nlgdmFm4tcqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>In article <00A8247E.E4E037C0@sendspamhere.org>,
    >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >>> In article <0003e74f$0$26284$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>>>John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand them.
    >>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade as they
    >>>>> say.
    >>>>
    >>>>But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>>compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>>gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>
    >>>>And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a 10
    >>>>second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>>try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>>begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>>value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>>available)
    >>>
    >>> Polling? How unixy.

    >>
    >>Since when? Version 6?

    >
    > Bill, you never cease to amaze me in the lack of humor department.


    Oh, I have humor. But that was yet another of the typical Unix type
    comments here and based on the demonstrated level of real Unix knowledge
    in this group there is little if any reason to assume it isn's a serious
    comment requiring an answer. I mean would be the response here if I
    constantly complained about SOS being the only VMS editor. :-)

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  18. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:40 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>>> them.
    >>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade
    >>>> as
    >>>> they
    >>>> say.
    >>>
    >>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>
    >>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a
    >>> 10
    >>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>> available)

    >>
    >> I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had
    >> used the
    >> compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive
    >> rights
    >> for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.

    > I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    > compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened when
    > they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago and
    > when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun unbundling
    > the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    > limitation.
    > bill
    >

    This was in 1994 Sun had asked me to write an IMS multiplexor with 3270
    screens for Hughes. It may be that you used educational license? The
    3270 emulator, BTW, was not reentrant so had to fork and spawn a lot,
    all because some implementor did not have the experience to avoid the use
    of static storage. The license did behave as I said until it was expanded.
    The original IMS front-end had been written in PL/I for a Stratus machine,
    which explains my involvement (in case you wonder) used named stream pipes
    to communicate between client and server


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  19. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of$2400.00???

    On Nov 10, 8:03*am, "John Reagan" wrote:
    >
    > I am a US-born citizen (born in Indiana) and I have a birth certificate to
    > prove it. *There are other US-born/US-based folks working on compilers
    > besides me.


    How many non-US developers are working on the compilers and the OS?
    It only takes one to no longer meet ITAR standards.

  20. Re: OVMS Integrity BASIC LTU Getting only 1 user at cost of $2400.00???

    In article ,
    "Tom Linden" writes:
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:22:40 -0800, Bill Gunshannon
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:19:01 -0800, JF Mezei
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> John Reagan wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been staying out of the discussion since I don't even understand
    >>>>> them.
    >>>>> That part of the productizing of the compilers is above my pay grade
    >>>>> as
    >>>>> they
    >>>>> say.
    >>>>
    >>>> But Shirley, you guys could add a couple of IF statements in your
    >>>> compilers to check the status of the licence check call and exit
    >>>> gracefully when it is not good ?
    >>>>
    >>>> And a better thing would be to put the licence check in a loop with a
    >>>> 10
    >>>> second timer. If the licence is already "in use", wait 10 seconds and
    >>>> try again. This way, as soon as the other compile is done, this one can
    >>>> begin. (this loop could be controlled though some logical name whose
    >>>> value would be the maximum amount of time to wait for licence to become
    >>>> available)
    >>>
    >>> I used a C compiler on a Sun box about 20 years ago, and if someone had
    >>> used the
    >>> compiler, you had to wait a half hour, because that useer had preemptive
    >>> rights
    >>> for that period, we ended up expanding the license to 2 users.

    >> I have been using Suns since the M68K Sun3 days and have never seen a
    >> compiler that was not just wide open. Well, that may have happened when
    >> they moved to the first Solaris versions (much less than 20 years ago and
    >> when we stopped being a Sun shop) when I seem to remember Sun unbundling
    >> the compiler but even then GNU-C was already available and had no such
    >> limitation.
    >> bill
    >>

    > This was in 1994 Sun had asked me to write an IMS multiplexor with 3270
    > screens for Hughes. It may be that you used educational license? The


    SunOS had no kind of license manager. You sure you weren't using a third
    party product? I do remember things like FrameMaker and Rational Rose all
    using license managers (and some even had dongles) but nothing I ever saw
    from Sun prior to the existence of Solaris.

    > 3270 emulator, BTW, was not reentrant so had to fork and spawn a lot,
    > all because some implementor did not have the experience to avoid the use
    > of static storage. The license did behave as I said until it was expanded.
    > The original IMS front-end had been written in PL/I for a Stratus machine,
    > which explains my involvement (in case you wonder) used named stream pipes
    > to communicate between client and server


    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast