Re: Genera 8.0 Announcement

[dmitchell@backus.trc.amoco.com (Donald H. Mitchell)]

    Date: Mon, 05 Mar 90 18:17:25 -0500
    From: magerman@linc.cis.upenn.edu

    I think you may find that this varies according to the environment in
    which these machines are used.  In academia, 1 set of manuals per
    machine is essential, if not
    insufficient.  However, I can imagine that, if all of the users on a
    set of machines are proficient, one set of manuals per 5 machines might
    suffice.  The important distinction is that extra manuals don't hurt
    the user, whereas a lack of manuals does.  If a user feels he/she is
    getting too many manuals, send them to us
    because we can always use them.

You should pay for what you get.  I'm paying 2-10 times as much as you are for
hardware, software, and maintenance, but it's the same equipment and the same
level of service  (in fact, the service probably is worse since I'm in the
middle of nowhere).  I don't want to pay for your stuff, but I am.  I
certainly don't want to pay for your extra manuals.  Buy them yourself.

    In summary, I find this policy *extremely* hard for Symbolics to defend
    from any direction, and I would *love* to hear from someone (other than
    stockholders who are not users) who supports and can justify this policy.

I support it.  I want Symbolics to survive.  Anytime I want to purchase
something, I'm raked over the coals because Symbolics does not equal IBM in
``vendor viability.''  You don't realize how much Symbolics equipment and
software doesn't get purchased because Fortune 500 companies don't buy from
``non-viable'' vendors.  Heck, even for those without MBA's meddling in all
purchase decisions, they say, ``Do we want to buy from a company that cannot
possibly survive?''  Most say, ``No.''  Why do you think TI's Explorer did so
well?  It wasn't speed; it wasn't enhancements to the software (a null set);
it was that TI was a ``viable vendor.''  It's a terrible catch-22, but it's
life.