Subject: Re: BK is *evil* corporate software
From: Henning Schmiedehausen <hps@intermeta.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20021009.165003.103179484.davem@redhat.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021007204830.00b8b460@pop.gmx.net>
	<20021007143134.V14596@work.bitmover.com> <ao2ee1$l0c$1@forge.intermeta.de>
	 <20021009.165003.103179484.davem@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 10 Oct 2002 10:09:50 +0200
Message-Id: <1034237391.23997.16.camel@forge>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3175
Lines: 73

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 01:50, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de>
>    Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 23:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
>    
>    For the vast number of three to five developers enterprises, it's
>    simply unreasonably priced.
> 
> Larry is trying to tell you that BK isn't for you.
> It costs too much to support small numbers of groups
> which is why he can't price it the way you want.

Guess what, 

I did understand this in Larrys' mail. I didn't need you to figure it
out for me. :-)

But I didn't know this when we first asked for a price quote about six
month ago. I found no boiler plate sign saying "we're going for the big
guys. If you don't have a yearly cash flow well into seven figures, go
away". 

BitMover Inc. pushes its lead product (which seems to be quite nice,
unfortunately it's not for _us_) aggressivly into the market by tackling
the 2nd most successful open source product ever [1]: the Linux Kernel.

I'd guess that 90% of the Linux kernel developers are either individuals
(and I count people like you or Alan still as "individuals", though
you're working for bigger companies. Is RedHat using bk internally on a
regular base?) or working for very small companies which develop a
specific part of the kernel (Driver, network protocol, name it) which is
needed in a product based on Linux.

So there is a discrepancy that is a thorn at least in my side: If I do
"fun work" on the Linux Kernel, I get to play with the "big boys' tools"
but I must not use them in my daily-bread work. (BTW: There I use CVS). 

What I envision (Larry, are you listening?) would be a sort of "small
company license". Let's say "three to five seats, not expandable, if you
need a bigger license, you have to pay the full step up to the regular
bk prices even for the first seats" with a limited support (or support
contract at additional costs) for one version on one unix platform [2]
from a limited choice (Let's say Linux, BSD). Bundle this at about Euro
1k. Now you can whine about "you tailored a license just for yourself".
Right. Selfish me :-)

One point that BitMover shouldn't underestimate is the "familiarity with
tools". All of our developers came with "CVS pre-knowledge". So we
didn't have to train them from the start; we showed them the tools and
they were set. If you get a larger user base using bk, you IMHO would
get a "grass roots movement" into bigger companies.

BTW: Anyone using bk for Java development?

	Regards
		Henning

[1] #1 is IMHO still the GNU C Compiler suite.

[2]  Everyone who can afford Windows XP Professional edition for five
     developers can pay bk regular pricing too. :-)

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/