nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they had been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has ever commented
on this.
Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
unfortunately, this is not an oversight.
Art Hays <avhays@nih.gov> wrote:
nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they had been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has ever commented
on this.Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
I’m curious why this is. Does Sun charge for NFS? Does it cost QSSL to include it?
How can it be in Linux?
“liug” <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message news:ap9q18$aua$1@inn.qnx.com…
unfortunately, this is not an oversight.
Art Hays <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote:
nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they had been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has ever commented
on this.Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
“Art Hays” <avhays@nih.gov> wrote in message
news:apa45q$l8j$1@inn.qnx.com…
I’m curious why this is. Does Sun charge for NFS? Does it cost QSSL to
include it?
How can it be in Linux?
It’s my guess this is consider a professional type of application, hence it
probably has been remove to reduce the likely hood of business users not
paying for it.
“liug” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:ap9q18$aua$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
unfortunately, this is not an oversight.Art Hays <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote:
nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they had
been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I
assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has ever
commented
on this.Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
\
If anyone at QSSL is monitoring this, I would like to submit feedback from my perspective.
Here at NIH we support about 20-30 users of the real-time data acquisition system we
have developed. They are in universities around the world, and are non-commercial users.
We also pay QSSL $12k/year for support, and have purchased two development seats. So we are
contributing to the bottom line. I dont want to see QSSL ever go away from lack
of funds, so if this policy is necessary you might consider packaging NFS as an add-on to NC and
sell it to obvious non-commercial sites (like universities) for a small price to cover costs.
Lastly, and this opinion is from a business perspective, I would think you would want to do
everything
you could to promote widespread use in university environments. This is where the future
programmers
are. Supposedly this helped Linux.
“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message news:apa89q$pbt$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Art Hays” <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote in message
news:apa45q$l8j$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I’m curious why this is. Does Sun charge for NFS? Does it cost QSSL to
include it?
How can it be in Linux?It’s my guess this is consider a professional type of application, hence it
probably has been remove to reduce the likely hood of business users not
paying for it.
“liug” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:ap9q18$aua$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
unfortunately, this is not an oversight.Art Hays <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote:
nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they had
been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I
assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has ever
commented
on this.Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
\
You might be interested to know that we provide yearly renewable licenses
for QNX Momentics PE to qualifying non-profit educacational and research
programs, free of charge. This is done on a per-program, not
per-institution basis. For information, contact education@qnx.com.
Art Hays wrote in message …
If anyone at QSSL is monitoring this, I would like to submit feedback from
my perspective.
Here at NIH we support about 20-30 users of the real-time data acquisition
system we
have developed. They are in universities around the world, and are
non-commercial users.We also pay QSSL $12k/year for support, and have purchased two development
seats. So we are
contributing to the bottom line. I dont want to see QSSL ever go away from
lack
of funds, so if this policy is necessary you might consider packaging NFS
as an add-on to NC and
sell it to obvious non-commercial sites (like universities) for a small
price to cover costs.Lastly, and this opinion is from a business perspective, I would think you
would want to do
everything
you could to promote widespread use in university environments. This is
where the future
programmers
are. Supposedly this helped Linux.“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:apa89q$pbt$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Art Hays” <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote in message
news:apa45q$l8j$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I’m curious why this is. Does Sun charge for NFS? Does it cost QSSL
to
include it?
How can it be in Linux?It’s my guess this is consider a professional type of application, hence
it
probably has been remove to reduce the likely hood of business users not
paying for it.
“liug” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:ap9q18$aua$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
unfortunately, this is not an oversight.Art Hays <> avhays@nih.gov> > wrote:
nfsd and portmap were not in the 6.2NC release, even though they
had
been in
previous non-commerical releases and are in the documentation. I
assumed
this was an oversight, though I dont think anyone from QSSL has
ever
commented
on this.Are they in patchA-nc.qpr?
–
Art Hays
National Institutes of Health
avhays@nih.gov
\