home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!nitelog!michael.hagerty
- From: michael.hagerty@nitelog.com (Michael Hagerty)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
- Subject: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD
- Message-ID: <921.237.uupcb@nitelog.com>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 22:24:00 GMT
- Distribution: world
- Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096
- Reply-To: michael.hagerty@nitelog.com (Michael Hagerty)
- Lines: 23
-
-
- On 12-21-92, GREGORY AHARONIAN wrote to ALL:
-
- GA> Why is this a bad pricing structure? First, most DoE codes are in
- GA> Fortran, and most scientists and engineers are used to porting such
- GA> codes across platforms with ease, which for supercomputers is helped by
- GA> tools from the manufacturer. Thus to save money, I would buy the
- GA> personal computer version and port it myself, given the very high
- GA> markups for the non-personal computer versions. Thus if there is any
- GA> economic need by the DoE center to charge high prices to recoup or
- GA> cover some support cost, it is undermined by the market.
-
- I believe that DOE is merely aping what every vendor in the country does
- already: base the cost of the software on the perceived cost of the hard
- ware on which it is to be run. Note the difference in cost of compilers
- for PCs, workstations, minis and mainframes. I've heard justifications
- ad nauseum from vendors for this structuring and they all sound equally
- foolish.
-
- Regards, Mikey (michael.hagerty@nitelog.com)
-
- * JABBER v1.3B1 #B042 * Include this in your CONFIG.SYS File: SET BUGS=OFF
-
-