Because I received this question twice today:

> I like and use qcterm in windows but we are considering a move to linux for
> cheeper terminals.. does qcterm work under linux?

...allow me to answer it publicly.

The answer is unfortunately no, we're never likely to support QCTerm on
Linux. There are several reasons, the most basic of which is that we
developed QCTerm using Visual Basic and that there is no easy method to move
a VB-based program over to Linux.

However the other primary reason is that there is no economic reason for us
to do so. Developing QCTerm cost us half a million dollars, which is a fair
investment for a product that we always intended to give away for free.
However we originally had good reason to spend that money based on a
long-term strategy we were developing for the HP3000. Although November 14th
last year profoundly changed those reasons, we have no similar long-term
outlook for developing a relationship with Linux users, nor can we think of
any.

While Linux is popular among developers, at least as a talking point, it
still has made virtually no inroads into the general user community. There
are only one thousandth as many Linux desktop users as there are Mac users,
and we're not supporting Mac users either.

However the inquiries about Linux don't really seem to be about Linux, per
se. It's been my impression when people are ask about QCTerm on Linux,
they're really asking about the cheapest way to deploy a lot of PC-like
terminals to a large number of people at the very lowest price. You don't
need Linux for that.

A few years ago, when PC's were universally priced at about $2,500 each and
were reaching speeds of 75MHz, I mentioned on the list that I thought PC's
were aiming at a price-performance point of 600MHz and $600. Lordy, we've
long ago passed that point. You can now buy 1.7GHz, 128MB, 40GB disc-based
PC's for $400:

     http://www.e4me.com/products/index.html

We've bought a couple of these e-Machines and they tend to be about as
reliable as any of our other PCs. While this machine would perhaps only cost
$325 if it came without Windows, there's a point where cheapness for
cheapness'es sake is a losing proposition. A Windows-based machine will
present you with far more utility and return-on-investment over the long run
than any Linux-based device, if for no other reason than the far greater
library of programs and applications that will run on it, and thus the far
greater flexibility that it provides the user organization.

These are not meant to be fighting words designed to spark some sort of
religious war; they're simply as close to the objective truth that I can
muster. Nor do I have anything against saving money. I much prefer the term
"fiscal conservative" rather than "cheapskate" when applied to my person. But
what I'm really arguing for is to properly consider the alternative to Linux.
If you're looking to Linux only to save money and not as some form of
political statement, consider running QCTerm on some of these really cheap
PC's instead. I think that you and your user organization will find that
you're going to be a great deal more pleased over the long-run.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *