LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 1999, week 2)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:50:21 -0500
Reply-To:     greg.barnesnelson@statprobe.com
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Greg Barnes Nelson <greg.barnesnelson@STATPROBE.COM>
Subject:      Re: A version of SAS which runs under Linux?
Comments: cc: Tim Churches <tchur@BIGPOND.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Tim, as always, you make some very compelling arguments for a freeSAS. I also learned three new words every time I read one of your posts. thanks.

Because of SAS' predominance in server-based architectures, Linux provides a nice, low-cost architecture for departmental and workgroup computing. The TCO (total cost of ownership) however, doesn't just stop with the architecture. You still need people to maintain the box, etc. An even more compelling reason to have a low-cost OS. Various vendors (IBM, Dell, Compaq, Sybase, Oracle) are moving to support this platform. SAS should consider this as a viable OS, despite it's rough-edged appearance.

Some points to consider when thinking about a freeSAS.

1. Because of Linux's widespread use in Internet and Intranet applications, I would hate to see a version releaseed without some of the more interesting products such as SAS/IntrNet and MDDB server. (see Tim's comments below on releasing a 6.0x version of freeSAS)

2. SAS has a reputation for world-class technical support. I doubt that they would simply hand over the support to a group of well-intentioned, knowledgeable, SAS-loving renagades - no matter how capable they might be, or how small the market segment.

3. Reviving 6.04 support levels (even from a re-compile perspective), would require a considerable amount of energy. Even when I was at the Univ of Georgia and we had 6.02 users out there (because it ran well on 286/ 386 machines), we had to special-request setinits for the older versions. And because it was not maintstream, it requires extra effort. The recompile would be fairly tough considering the modern (current) changement management/ version control tools that they use have most likely been introduced since 6.11. Although I have no direct experience with this.

4. In SAS' eyes, they are giving SAS away to Universities and educational institutions. The costs they are recouping there are mainly documentation, distribution and support costs. Even though most have central support units within computer centers and such, supporting campuses of 35,000 students can be a bit overwhelming. I have always been a proponent of giving it away at the university level, training faculty and graduate students on the tools and then reaping the benefits when they join the workforce. I'm not sure that's how it always gets implemented though. I heard a recent story of a prof wanting to use Enterprise Miner in a graduate course and SI would not provide them with a copy. shame shame.

5. Third world countries... hmmm not sure what to say here, expect you're probably right. I remember receiving a call from an agricultural institute in S.A. about 5 years ago that asked if we could help them recompile this program on their brand new high performance computer (by our standards, 1st generation boat anchors). The software: a version of SAS that was distributed to agricultural experiment stations in the late 1960's call the Statistical Analysis System. Oh, but it had it's own manual. ;-)

6. I would think that supporting Version 7 or 8+ on Linux would be easier than supporting older versions. Tech support would have to train folks on Linux and because of turnover, also have to train them on 6.0x. A standarad Linux would be nice (say Red Hat), but getting the Linux community to give up their Slackware in favor of standardization would probably bring the walls crumbling down.

7. The marketing possibilites for SAS internationally in third world countires intruigues me. I can see the press release now:

WHO and SAS Solve World Hunger

Cary, NC - Today SAS Institute and the World Health Organization solved world hunger by providing a steady revenue stream for third world countries. This new program will allow street vendors and marketeers to seel bootlegged copies of the SAS System to Linux users. Due to to the United States stance on 128-bit encyrption outside the United States and world-wide preddominance of the Linux operating system, industry analysts predict that the re-invesment in local economies, will boost the third world GNP to twice that of Japan and U.S.

I'm not sure that I've introduced anything new that Peter Crawford, Joe Kelley, Karsten Self or Tim Churches hasn't thought of, I feel compelled to join the Linux bandwagon. Afterall, a departmental sized server that is low-cost, remote administration capabilities and has both command-line and GUI interface does not exist. ;-)

Back to my NT box... for now.

--greg barnes nelson Author of: Exploiting SAS in Server Environments: A UNIX and NT primer (To be released after the Y2K thing has been fixed.)

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Churches [mailto:tchur@BIGPOND.COM] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 1999 2:41 AM Subject: A version of SAS which runs under Linux?

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 Linux operating system. This growth in support includes not just individual users but also many of the world's largest software companies (excepting THE largest...), who are actively promoting Linux and are releasing native Linux versions of their flagship products. Further discussion on SAS-L has focussed on a suitable marketing model for SAS for Linux, given that a great deal of software for Linux is free, including many of the Linux versions of software released by major software companies.

One suggestion has been that SI release a very cheap or free version of SAS 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:

a) widespread adoption of free SAS in educational institutions, where SAS has been at a disadvantage due to cost issues (even with academic discounts for SAS license) b) widespread use of free SAS in developing countries (and in impecunious NGOs in developed countries), where SAS has always been too expensive to consider c) the training benefits of a) and b), since shortage of SAS-literate personnel has often been a barrier to the adoption of SAS in corporate environments d) the humanitarian benefits of b) e) a firm presence in the Linux mindspace, given that Linux looks like it is about to take-off in a big way f) lots of opportunites for cross-promotion of commercial versions of SAS.

It occured to me that maybe SI has a version of SAS which would be just right for this purpose: SAS Version 6.04 for MS-DOS.

Although I haven't tried it, SAS Version 6.04 for MS-DOS will almost certainly run under Linux on Intel-based machines (which is the vast majority of Linux machines) using the DOSemu subsystem (DOSemu is a DOS emulator which allows MS-DOS programmes to run under Linux - see http://www.dosemu.org for details).

All that SI would have to do is verify that SAS V6.04 works reliably under DOSemu (volunteers may be able to help with this task) and then just recompile it with the setinit licensing bits removed. Therefore the development cost to SI would be minimal.

Of course, SAS V6.04 for MS-DOS also runs under MS-DOS. There are many more 286, 386 and 486 computers running MS-DOS (+/- Windows 3.x) than there are Linux boxes. Old PCs running MS-DOS are the norm in many developing countries as well as many educational institutions. Therefore, releasing a free version of SAS V6.04 for MS-DOS would also acheive benefits a), b) c) and d) above far better than a native Linux version of SAS, while still making many Linux users happy.

Yes, I know the idea of having to use an MS-DOS program is anathema to many Linuxistas, but the rest of us are not really interested in such computing theological issues and just want to get the job done with the best balance of cost, reliablity, speed and facilities.

Personally, I think that SAS V6.04 running under DOS emulation under Linux would be just fine for very many purposes. However, after using Version 6.12 or V7, very few users would want to go back to using V6.04. That is the point: free SAS V6.04 would be adequate for many uses where SAS has been ruled out because of cost, but not very attractive to the majority of users who can already afford more recent versions of SAS (or who need SAS on heavyweight hardware like mainframes). Of course, some of the new SAS users which free SAS would attract would ned up migrating to a commercial SAS license.

For those who are familiar with SAS V6.04 for MS-DOS, it was one of the first versions of SAS (actually 6.03 was) which was written entirely in C and was a precursor to Versions 6.06 onwards on multi-user platforms (Unix, VMS, mainframes) and Windows. SAS V6.04 shares almost all of the same data step and procedure syntax as SAS V6.06 or later, but lacks things like dataset indexing and compression. It does not have a true GUI interface - the choices are a command line interface for batch mode or a clunky character-mode interface with the usual "3 windows" (Program Editor, Log and 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 graphics 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 thhrough post-processing). Various modern statistical procedures are absent, such as PROC LOGISTIC and PROC GENMOD. However, there are numerous free DOS-mode or native Linux alternatives for these available.

So, how do people feel about this proposal? Should we petition Dr Jim?

Cheers,

Tim Churches Sydney, Australia


[text/html]


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page