Peter Crawford writes:
>v6.04 is a very much better idea than v5
> I can't imagine any commercial reason to object to such an old release.
> Particularly, given the arguments you offer.
>I assume there would be no support from SAS Institute for free-SAS.
>SI can't be getting much business from ms-dos customers.
>So what have they to lose ?
>I hope SAS Institute recognise the merit of your proposal
Thanks Peter. No, I don't think that anyone would expect SI to provide
technical support for freeSAS - I imagine that most support would be via
this list or (better perhaps) another list set up especially for freeSAS
If SI gave their permission, I am sure that a co-operative effort (in the
best Linux tradition) could be organised to scan in all of the old SAS
manuals which are relevant to SAS V6.04 and convert them to, say, PDF (Adobe
Acrobat) format. We do this quite a lot with old documents and find that 30
or 40 pages of text scanned in comes to about 1 megabyte when converted to
PDF format, meaning that individual chapters could be made available in a
form which is practical for downloading from the Internet. That means a Web
site. Yes, I am sure a "freeSAS" Web site could be established
(www.freesas.org?). As I have already noted, if SI gives its assent, I am
also sure a merry international band of testers of SAS V6.04 under DOSemu
under Linux could be assembled who would do all the testing necessary. In
fact SI could refer the whole issue of whether free-SAS ran under Linux to
the freeSAS special interest group.
That means that SI doesn't have to do anything except release a version of
SAS V6.04 for DOS with the setinit stuff removed (freeSAS) and then bask in
the limelight and reap the rewards...
>(There was a 6.02 release, quickly replaced by 6.03, and later 6.04.
> The embryonic display manager, supported more windows than the 3 you
> remember : Options, Title, Footnote, LIBname, DIRectory, CATalog, as
> well as ACCess and drill-down was supported from the lib window.
> The build directory window, first available in this early release,
> continues to provide unique services in 6.12.
> I think the total number of windows in 6.04 was over 30.
Yes, I omitted to mention all the ancilliary windows. Luckily 6.02 predates
my SAS experience!
>Tim Churches <tchur@BIGPOND.COM> writes
>>There has been considerable discussion on this list about SI's apparent
>>intransigence (or is it diffidence or indifference?) on the subject of a
>>version of SAS for Linux, despite the rapidly growing support for the
>>operating system. This growth in support includes not just individual
>>but also many of the world's largest software companies (excepting THE
>>largest...), who are actively promoting Linux and are releasing native
>>versions of their flagship products. Further discussion on SAS-L has
>>focussed on a suitable marketing model for SAS for Linux, given that a
>>deal of software for Linux is free, including many of the Linux versions
>>software released by major software companies.
>>One suggestion has been that SI release a very cheap or free version of
>>for Linux which is based on an earlier release of SAS so as not to entice
>>potential customers away from paying for a more recent version.
>>Some of the benefits of such a version of SAS, which I will refer to as
>>"free SAS" might include:
>>the choices are a command line interface for batch mode or a clunky
>>character-mode interface with the usual "3 windows" (Program Editor, Log
>>Output). It does include SAS/AF and SAS/FSP but does not support Frame
>>entries - the interface would be familiar to users of SAS on mainframe
>>terminals i.e. decidedly utilitarian. Production of high resolution
>>is supported through SAS/GRAPH but there are no drivers for GIF or other
>>Web-related formats, although most importantly PostScript output is
>>available (which can then be converted to just about anything else
>>post-processing). Various modern statistical procedures are absent, such
>>PROC LOGISTIC and PROC GENMOD. However, there are numerous free DOS-mode
>>native Linux alternatives for these available.
>>So, how do people feel about this proposal? Should we petition Dr Jim?
>go for it