In article <32DFE63C.7327 at unity.ncsu.edu>, Susan Jane Hogarth
<sjhogart at unity.ncsu.edu> writes
>Chris Fields wrote:
>>>... My problem stems from a lack of interest by our
>> university in our research (they think such programs are, as Susan
>> Hogarth so erroneously put it, 'luxury items').
>>Misunderstanding here. I meant that biology software was a luxury in the
>"real" world - obviously, in the *academic* world, it is a neccesity.
But it still nevertheless has to be paid for since someone has actually
given up time to do which he/she could otherwise have been earning money
to buy food etc.
>protection like bread or water or energy (if *they* even do). I see no
>one complaining about the high cost of modern art...
Good one.
>>>> I wish that other software developers would feel the same way. I never
>> meant to imply that I want this for *free*. I just think that charging
>> the price of a used car for a software package is ludicrous
They produce it so they can charge what ever they like.
--
Herbert M Sauro
email: HSauro at fssc.demon.co.uk
Telephone: 01974 282428
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who cannot draw on 3000 years is living from hand to mouth" Goethe
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
R Browning.
