In message <9303180823.1.UUL1.3#5127@aladdin.com> you write:
>code, documentation, and user-orientation as the commercial ones.  And
>that's because the effort required to build software that actually solves
>users' problems well is much higher than the effort required to build
>software that just sort of does the job.
>

agreed...its the difference between something which just works and something
which works well...

I've found you're more productive with something which works well (with a higher
up front cost).   Many times when I finally decided to "fix" something, I should
have fixed it a long time ago (it probably would be cheaper).

You can pay now or keep paying...

>Let me share a story with you.  Yesterday I was visiting a company where a
>friend of mine works as the system administrator.  We were talking about
>SLIP and PPP, which they were just starting to install.  I don't remember
>how the topic came up, but he said that he'd looked at 3 or 4 different
>freely available PPP packages, and he'd given up on all of them, and gone
>with a commercial package instead.  He said that what happened with every
>one of them was that they didn't really quite work, and after fiddling
>around trying to get them to work, modifying the kernel, etc., etc., he
>just decided it wasn't worth his time.
>

Its funny...on my DOS machine, I run msh and join...NOTHING INSTALLS!!
 
I've used NCSA telnet and several commercial lan packages...NCSA was more
understandable, took less time and was more flexible...

Like I said, I wouldn't mind commercial software so much IF I had source...

marty
leisner@eso.mc.xerox.com leisner.henr801c@xerox.com 
Member of the League for Programming Freedom
"I just know I'm a better manager when I have Joe DiMaggio in center field" -- Casey
Stengel