chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll) (12/02/84)
>I understand AT&T knows they cannot continue to survive with only >this constituency, but without it, Un*x (ed: last word modified) wouldn't > be alive in the commercial marketplace to survive. AT&T marketing seems to ignore what brought UN*X up to the level it is at now. Their marketing actions seem to be going towards stomping out any other 'non-standard' UN*X system. One wonders if down the road, some company named Carterphone will challenge their trademark of UN*X. Maybe some small firm in a last attempt to stay afloat might try to claim that AT&T has engaged in unfair business practices? But then again the AT&T legal staff might be able to delay the legal actions long enough for 'their standard' to be well established. My guess is AT&T is already well prepaired in case this happens. AT&T marketing, in my opinion does not understand what UN*X is. To me, UN*X is not a pile of code to which someone at AT&T has blessed. UN*X is not a set of source listings that generate a diff listing less than Y inches thick. UN*X is a way of doing things. UN*X is a dynamic idea. The UN*X idea was started by folks like Ritchie,Kernighan,Thompson (and others) at Bell Labs, and is even now being enhanced by thousands of others over the world. UN*X is people in net.unix-wizards asking for advice. UN*X is people posting bug fixes to net.bugs.foo. To force UN*X into a plastic wrapped package is not UN*X. To declare all future versions to be upward compatible is to condemn the users to have to eat the original design flaws. UN*X was able to evolve beyond more static commercial operating systems because people were free to improve it. This is not to say that some versions of UN*X were not a setback, but rather that having access to source code and being able to fix/improve it gave UN*X a big plus. Anyway let it be known that the above statments are my own and that this does not reflect any company stand. chongo <GNU's not UN*X> /\gg/\ BTW: UN*X is a usenet symbol for the 'non-standard' versions of Unix Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs AT&T Bell labs are a footnote of Unix :-) -- "Don't blame me, I voted for Mondale!" John Alton 85'
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (12/02/84)
I have real problems with a company that can consistently send its
marketing people to conferences to do product announcements, get
consistently yelled at, booed at, hissed at, and almost literally thrown
off the stage, and not seem to realize that their customers don't like what
they are doing. Everything that AT&T does seems directly against the basic
marketing precepts of giving their customers what they want (at a fair
price). This is one of the real reasons why I tend to shy away from system
V as strongly as I do-- it isn't technical (although I DO prefer the BSD
releases) it is simply that dealing with AT&T disgusts me. I'd rather play
with an IBM-- their technical stuff isn't the best, but they DO know how to
deal with their customers.
chuq (they don't care, they don't have to-- they used to be the phone company)
--
From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon
upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~physics@utcs.UUCP (David Harrison) (12/05/84)
[chomp] Although I tend to agree with this article, just for fun try the following: g/AT\&T/s//The Establishement/g g/UN*X/s//Reverend Moon/g and try re-reading. See what I mean?
cc1@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/08/84)
In article <1936@nsc.UUCP> chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) writes: >UN*X was able to evolve beyond more static >commercial operating systems because people were free to improve it. >This is not to say that some versions of UN*X were not a setback, but rather >that having access to source code and being able to fix/improve it gave >UN*X a big plus. Fine in theory, but name one company that distributes a modern unix compatible system with source. I have a lot of things I'd like to fix, but no sources makes it impossible. Michael
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (12/08/84)
If you were doing marketing at AT&T, and saw all the hell-raising about the
exorbitant price of the recent BLTJ issue, you might be a little stung by
all of the criticism. In particular, it might hit home that the criticism
is mostly justified. However, if you're a decent marketeer you'd have
developed a thick skin, and you'd realize that publicity is publicity!
Probably more people are aware of this issue BECAUSE of its price.
This is only a conjecture, of course...but if abrasive, obnoxious marketing
practices can be used to sell TP, deodorant, and plastic hamburgers--why
not technical journals?
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Are you making this up as you go along?phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (12/10/84)
> Fine in theory, but name one company that distributes a modern unix compatible > system with source. I have a lot of things I'd like to fix, but no sources > makes it impossible. Our DEC salesman says you CAN get source for Ultrix, with sufficient bucks where order of magnitude is $15k for sites already ATT source licensed. If he's lying to me, may God strike him down. -- I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware type. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA