Richard Gambrell writes:

> The question very much in our face here at UTC is where to direct our next
> generation software development and how to evolve the current generation.
> Does it make sense to aim it at qcterm or at html or Java or any of the
> other client/server technologies? Can we afford to do more than one?

That's exactly the connundrum faced by every developer (at either end, vendor
or user) during those periods when there is no clear winner. The following
text is from today's New York Times:

=======================================

"For the first time, the organizers of Comdex, Ziff-Davis, opened a parallel
conference called the Linux Business Expo to give Linux developers a central
place to display their wares. The halls were not nearly as crowded as those
near Microsoft's booth, but hundreds of people streamed by to look, for the
first time, at new programs like a Linux version of Word Perfect from Corel.

"There is a lot of momentum," said Andy Wolf, a business development manager
for Andover.net, the parent company of Slashdot, a pro-Linux Web site. "But I
don't necessarily think it will become bigger than Microsoft."

"But several of those interviewed noted the quandary inherent in such
competition.

"Because Linux is a free system, whose code can be manipulated by anybody, it
also breeds variation. Instead of having one standard system upon which
everyone can build applications and use documents, Linux may have differing
branches depending on how it is altered by individual developers. Microsoft,
on the other hand, stands for standardization -- there is one system that can
be built upon without any fear of incompatibility.

"To Ryan Priest, a Microsoft-certified systems engineer who came to Comdex
partly to hunt for a job, Microsoft's standards are not something that should
be simply dismissed: "It boils down to, how can you use it? Everybody can
develop things that are compatible with Microsoft. With other platforms,
you're going to have problems."

"He added: "Competition is good. But you also want stability."

=======================================

The full article is at:

     http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/biztech/articles/16comdex.html

However, from a perfectly realistic point of view, our choice in client
platform for primary development is clear. Macs make up no more than just a
few percentage points in a normal business environment. Linux can't
reasonably claim any more than 1 in a million business users (a legitimately
accurate estimate at the moment, not exaggerated hyperbole).

By having one common development/user platform, life is made enormously
simpler for both the vendor and user alike. At the moment, PCs are 97% of the
intended market. But more than even that, from our point of view, QCTerm
looks as if it's final price tag is going to come out about $400,000. Thus
developing a second source version for a client that represents 3% or less of
the market, at some significant fraction of the original cost, is simply not
worth it -- especially for a product you intend on giving away for free.

Secondly, PCs are going to get very cheap. There are already capable devices
on the market at less than $500. It's entirely possible to see $200, 400MHz
PCs in a year or two. At that point, a fully functional PC is as cheap as an
emulator package running on top of an alternate platform. And enormously more
efficient.

For all of the talk of alternative platforms, the moral remains the same that
I mentioned a few days ago that Bill Gates said in 1980: "There's only going
to be one winner." In practical, pragmatic terms, we've essentially reached
that point now.

Wirt Atmar