nfsd and portmap

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.applications
Post Reply
Art Hays

nfsd and portmap

Post by Art Hays » Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:30 pm

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

liug

Re: nfsd and portmap

Post by liug » Thu Oct 24, 2002 9:51 pm

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

Re: nfsd and portmap

Post by Art Hays » Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:52 am

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

Mario Charest

Re: nfsd and portmap

Post by Mario Charest » Fri Oct 25, 2002 2:00 am

"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



Art Hays

Re: nfsd and portmap

Post by Art Hays » Fri Oct 25, 2002 5:45 pm

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





Eric Johnson

Re: nfsd and portmap

Post by Eric Johnson » Fri Oct 25, 2002 8:48 pm

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







Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.applications”