| PV-WAVE for Linux [message #4351] |
Fri, 19 May 1995 00:00  |
larkum
Messages: 21
Registered: May 1993
|
Junior Member |
|
|
It's 1 month today since VNI stopped the trial period for
PV-WAVE for Linux. Does this mean it wasn't a success?
Matthew.
|
|
|
|
| Re: PV-WAVE for Linux [message #4387 is a reply to message #4351] |
Wed, 24 May 1995 00:00  |
jeff
Messages: 4
Registered: November 1993
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Doug Andersen (douga@news.gate.net) wrote:
: In article <3ppsai$lmq@aragorn.unibe.ch>, M Larkum <larkum@pyl.unibe.ch> wrote:
: >If it's so easy to do (and it's been done now anyway), what more do
: >they have to do than offer the damn software to people who want to
: >buy it? If nobody wants it, they don't lose a cent.
: >
: >Am I missing something?
: Yes. Porting the software itself is a significant part of the cost, but
: there are all sorts of other costs associated with launching a product.
: Developing a complete installation guide, documentation, promotional
: materials, getting disks copied, documentation printed, computer systems
: updated, changing millions of different little things. Plus you have to
: worry about the product each time you update. So when a new version
: comes out you have to go through all the numerous steps involved, even if
: you have 10 users. Or you decide not to update for that environment and
: annoy the hell out of those 10 customers.
I suspect it's more of a marketting dilemma. If the Unix version is approx
5-8K how much can you charge for the Linux version which is identical in
funtionality. People running a free OS on a 2-3K Pentium box are not likely
to spend more than a few hundred bucks for it.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
| Re: PV-WAVE for Linux [message #4399 is a reply to message #4351] |
Tue, 23 May 1995 00:00 |
douga
Messages: 2
Registered: May 1994
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <3ppsai$lmq@aragorn.unibe.ch>, M Larkum <larkum@pyl.unibe.ch> wrote:
> If it's so easy to do (and it's been done now anyway), what more do
> they have to do than offer the damn software to people who want to
> buy it? If nobody wants it, they don't lose a cent.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes. Porting the software itself is a significant part of the cost, but
there are all sorts of other costs associated with launching a product.
Developing a complete installation guide, documentation, promotional
materials, getting disks copied, documentation printed, computer systems
updated, changing millions of different little things. Plus you have to
worry about the product each time you update. So when a new version
comes out you have to go through all the numerous steps involved, even if
you have 10 users. Or you decide not to update for that environment and
annoy the hell out of those 10 customers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: PV-WAVE for Linux [message #4431 is a reply to message #4351] |
Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00 |
atp
Messages: 1
Registered: May 1995
|
Junior Member |
|
|
dave@image6.med.uth.tmc.edu (David Fenyes) writes:
>>>> >> "M" == M Larkum <larkum@pyl.unibe.ch> writes:
> In article <3pi6s2$lmq@aragorn.unibe.ch> larkum@pyl.unibe.ch (M Larkum) writes:
> We had been using IDL for Windows until we snatched PV-Wave or Linux
> from the net. The products are comparable, but the environment is so
> much better that we preferred PV-Wave/Linux over IDL/Windows.
Damn,
I look away for a moment, and I miss it. Never heard about
this. Normally the linux community is big on publicising this sort
of stuff.
Ah well. back to trying to get IDL for windows to run under
WINOS2 under DOSEMU under Linux.....
If the demo is still available anywhere, I'd appreciate an
E-mail with the location. We are an all IDL shop here, but I dont
use widgets myself so could make the transition to pv-wave.
> RSI is very evasive about a Linux port, and they don't seem to have
> scheduled a release :-(
Little bit annoyed about the complete lack of noises here.
filled in the RSI form + sent it off. We have asked the local distributors
about the progress, and no info has come back at all. If they just said
"no-way" then that would be better than keeping us hanging around.
----
Dear RSI,
Please let us know what you are up to. If you are not sure that
we are profitable enough for you, Then how about a statically linked
SCO-386 binary we could run under iBCS2 instead? That would shut
us up :-), and kill two birds with one stone.
----
Thanks for your time,
andy
OB IDL,
The 3.5.1 -> 3.6.1c (Alpha OSF) release changed something in how
the code segment was allocated. I have program that insists on crashing
under 3.5.1 with "% Program unit has too many local variables."
This is resistant to fiddling with the .size keyword. (yep, I know it
has to be the first command). Fixed in 3.6.1c.
Question - How can I get it to work under 3.5.[0-1] ? In some cases
upgrading is not "practical".
--
atp@mssly1.mssl.ucl.ac.uk Andy Phillips
atp@mssl.ucl.ac.uk Mullard Space Science Laboratory,
phillips@isass1.solar.isas.ac.jp Dept. Space and Climate Physics,
mssly1::atp University College London.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
