Re: RDi vs SEU (was: Standard source file names?)

-----Original Message-----

From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The low adoption rate speaks only to the fact that
this market genuinely feels that SEU is Plenty Good Enough.

OK. That sounds right to me. It also means the "problem", such as it
is, is just this side of intractable, because there are some powerful
chicken-egg relationships in play.

I maintain that the issue was never about the cost - everybody pays for
SEU and SEU is pants.

I'm less convinced about this part of your argument. It's difficult
to fully extricate cost. But first I think it's worth clarifying:
Are you saying SEU is a separate cost from the compilers? You can buy
the compilers without buying SEU?

Buck had it wrong, it is all about cost. IBM is exploiting their customers and then wondering why people leave the platform. They refuse to update SEU and then have the gall to charge their customers for an editor? I already pay for the languages. We paid for ours by selling back seats on other machines we removed the compilers from. Even then buying 28 seats is no small feat in penny pinching companies.

RDi is vastly over priced, compared to Microsoft's visual studios even v9 is a joke. Customization of even the look of RDi is a bear, you cannot share color schemes, you cannot layouts, and more. Then let us get into installing the beast. How convoluted can you get? Before we pushed IBM you had to visit a minimum of three sites to get the full install, one of which is not IBM owned. Do you still need to go to the non IBM site for license keys?

Drop the price to free or at most a hundred bucks. As I started off, IBM is exploiting their customers who have no real alternatives by not updating the green screen product which only further confirms in the eyes of many this system is dead or dieing.