Concerning Apple's pricing of A/UX 2.0.

[Allen BRIGGS]

In article <364 at three.MV.COM> cory at three.MV.COM (Cory Kempf) writes:
>[...] (after all, people who are using A/UX are
>not using MacOS -- Why should they have to pay for it?)

I must agree with most of Cory's points, but this last one (assuming
Cory wasn't being sarcastic) I can't agree with.  I've been using
A/UX on my mac II for almost two years now, and I use MacOS just as
much.  If I wanted a *nix box, I could get a better machine for the
same amount of money that the Mac II costs (at least in a reasonable
*nix configuration).  It may be just the fact that I'm a student and
like to use the wealth of games, utilities, and applications (not in
that order :-) that are available on the MacOS side, that aren't under
*nix.  I can't believe that only students are interested in the above,
though.

The place I go to get info packed into my head (Virginia Tech)
practically requires the Computer Science students to have a Mac II
*nix system (at least until recently).  I don't know what the original
reasons were, but it helped a lot that I could use MacWrite, or any of
the (approx) WYSIWYG word processors for my writing needs (nroff/
troff isn't much fun--esp. for someone not used to *nix).

Oh!  One more point.  Some of what makes up the Mac OS is necessary
for Apple's implementation of *nix, I believe.  At least anything
that uses any of the ROM routines...  I still think Apple is making
a grotesque profit from their regular prices, and their educational
discounts are still not much below highway robbery, IMO.  Hmmm...
I'm being less coherent now, and resorting to opinion.  Time to
stop.

-allen briggs
	(...!{uunet,uw-beaver}!microsoft!t-allenb, or,
	 microsoft!t-allenb at uunet.uu.net)
--
  I take full resposibility for what I say, and I speak only for
  myself, unless somebody's rights are being violated, and nobody
  is violating Microsoft's rights.  In other words, I don't speak
  for my employer.