> Part of that is the cost of Unix, both in terms of the actual software > itself, plus the cost of administering it. But y'know, people are > starting to complain about the cost of administering Windows, and > Windows isn't even a real OS! I think the potential is there for > Linux to evolve into an end-user friendly OS. The potential has been there for Unix to do that for almost 20 years, and it hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? > It has to include massive, well-written, well-packaged > documentation, which means there is much less of a separate market > for documentation. > > Mmmm, I'm not so sure of that. Why shouldn't printed documentation be > a separate purchase? People can buy it or not as they wish. Because no sensible end-user will look twice at software that doesn't include good documentation. And I didn't say "printed". More and more companies are distributing documentation on CD-ROM, which costs just as much to develop, although less to reproduce. > Having the source code is great, but it's not a substitute for ease > of configuration, documentation, or reliability, none of which Linux > has. And as a producer, I get calls all the time (from end-users) > telling me that Ghostscript is too hard to install or use. > > So Ghostscript is worth calling you about but not worth paying for? What would they pay for? I can't distribute a supported end-user version of Ghostscript at a competitive price: my time would be nibbled to death by support calls from clueless users. I would either have to pay beaucoup $$ to get end-user-quality documentation written, or beaucoup $$ to hire a support person. However, Ghostscript *is* competitive as an OEM product, because its value to OEMs is high enough that they can invest the time to learn about it despite mediocre documentation. L. Peter Deutsch :: Aladdin Enterprises :: P.O. box 60264, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ghost@aladdin.com, ...decwrl!aladdin!ghost ; voice 415-322-0103 ; fax 322-1734 "Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery."