merlyn@hogpc.UUCP (S.HUMPHREY) (05/29/84)
To clear up some incorrect information about AT&T's 3B*2: As correctly stated already, the basic or minimal 3B2 comes with a 10 Megabyte hard disk, a 720 Kilobyte floppy drive, and 512 Kilobytes main memory, and a "core" set of UNIX** utilities. (Not stated is that the 3B2 can be configured with a 32 Megabyte hard disk and 1 or 2 Megabytes main memory). The most INCORRECT information (which may have originated from the salespeople--please, I blame no one, just wish to clarify) is that the "core" package includes the C compiler but no assembler or loader, etc. First, the basic 3B2 does NOT come with the C compiler. The goal here is to provide a basic machine that runs the bare essentials of the UNIX commands, for those who want a computer for reasons that don't include programming. In this way such people can save money by not buying the C compiler, but at the same time have a UNIX machine that can run other applications and still have some UNIX commands for normal UNIX file access, file manipulation, user environment manipulation, etc. Second, when one buys the C compiler, one buys THREE sets of floppies, FIVE diskettes in all. On these diskettes one gets the C compiler, header files, ASSEMBLER, LOADER, and other programs like yacc and lex. One of the three packages is called the C Programming Language Utilities and includes the C compiler, another package is called the Software Generation Utilities and includes the assembler and linker/loader, and the third package is called the Extended Software Generation Utilities and includes yacc and lex. Please tell this to anyone from AT&T who tries to sell you the C compiler without the assembler! Third, vi does come with TERMCAP; it has to, as vi does not work without it! Vi and TERMCAP come with any 3B2 configuration. Why, one might ask, package UNIX into pieces? There are two reasons. One is that, with the 10 Megabyte hard disk configuration, not ALL of UNIX (kernel, libraries, header files, utilities) will fit on the disk AND leave much room for user files. Second, even with a 32 Megabyte hard disk configuration, one may not WANT all of UNIX (does EVERYBODY use BASIC, for instance? How about FORTRAN? How about a line printer spooling program?) With the packaging onto separate disks, some separately purchased, one is able to put together a UNIX system that balances need with disk space and cost. Steve Humphrey AT&T Information Systems * 3B is a trademark of AT&T Technologies (Western Electric) ** UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/31/84)
Oh well, so much for UNIX as a standard. It's amazing how AT&T got up at the keynote speach at UNIFORUM and said things like Vendor Independence and Standardization, only to go around constantly contradicting these fine ideals. -Ron
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/01/84)
> Oh well, so much for UNIX as a standard. It's amazing how AT&T got up > at the keynote speach at UNIFORUM and said things like Vendor Independence > and Standardization, only to go around constantly contradicting these > fine ideals. I don't see how not supplying everything in section 1 of the UNIX User's Manual means that UNIX isn't a standard anymore. Heck, V6 was the last UNIX that had a nice compact manual; and 4.xBSD and USG UNIX now have rather elephantine sections 1. We supply most of System III on our systems, and it eats a lot of disk space; we had to make the PWB/Graphics software an add-on to keep things from getting ridiculous. A lot of our customers are just buying an office automation system, and don't need compilers, "nroff"/"troff", or every nice tool that comes with UNIX. Some systems even package the utilities needed for administrative functions into their application package. Why force a user to buy what they don't need? "UNIX as a standard" means "UNIX as an OS that runs on most of the machines of supermicro and up class which will make it easier for people to develop applications for the OS, not for the particular machine". People who need to develop software can pay the price (in money and disk space) for the development tools, but not having a C compiler on your machine won't keep you from running most of the applications out there. In fact, I suspect you can run most of the applications out there even if you don't have "grep"! Remember, what's good for people whose job involves developing software may not be good (or necessary) for everybody who uses a computer. There's frequently a "developer-centric" attitude among us "real UNIX programmers"; but five years from now, unless UNIX is a marketplace failure, most UNIX sites won't have any more sophisticated programmer than a COBOL or business BASIC programmer in-house - if even that. An analogy - a BMW comes (or, at least, came - I think it's still true) with a toolkit packed in the trunk. However, most of the cars on the road are Chevies, Fords, Oldsmobiles, etc. driven by people who treat their car as a dumb appliance. Back in the early days of motoring, you *did* have to have a complete toolkit and you *did* have to understand some of how the car worked. If cars had remained like that, we wouldn't have ~100 million cars on the road today. If computers are going to become the everyday appliances that many people are hoping or proclaiming that they will be, the attitude that "real computers come with a full suite of development software (whether you need it or not)" will have to change. In many ways, Apple has the right idea - aim your product at the person who needs a tool to get a job done, not at the person who wants to work on the tool. Offer development software to people who want it, but don't make it a standard part of the system unless you can make it cheap enough (in terms of all resources, including disk space) that it's not worth a customer's while to pass the tools up. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
jpj@mss.UUCP (06/01/84)
One item of curious interest here is that AT&T will *lease* you any of the aforementioned software. That's right, for $10/mo you can get a copy of C and if you decide you don't like it, send it back! Now I wonder how they intend to enforce that? The salesman that I talked to (they're making the rounds, aren't they?) admitted that he didn't know what people were thinking of when they came up with that idea. Live and learn... -- Cheers... Jim Jenal (aka sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) Mayfield Senior School ( " vortex!wlbr!scgvaxd!mss!jpj)
agk@ihuxq.UUCP (06/01/84)
This is going a little too far. People are jumping to all sorts of conclusions with too little information. (I know, I know, so what else is new on the net? :-) ) Command partitioning is happening. Period. It makes a lot of sense ($$$ savings) to a lot of people. If *you* want lex(1) and yacc(1), then *you* can buy it. Someone trying to run a business probably doesn't need it, although they can buy it. And, yes, some commands will be deleted. Where commands don't make sense, they won't be offered. Release 1.0 of the AT&T 3B2 system does not offer a phototypesetter interface. Therefore, the 3B2 software does not include commands to talk to a phototypesetter. It also lacks an RP06 disk driver. It also lacks a blender interface. Big deal. If someone builds an RP06 or blender interface to the 3B2, they will sell any necessary commands. In the end, the average user will end up spending less. Software developers, I guess, will end up spending more than average (far more people use vi(1) than cc(1), so cc is optional), but less than they might otherwise. For example, a software developer need only buy their favorite language, they don't have to pay for all the others. Finally, if there is enough demand for a product (a command), I feel sure that it will be offered. Of course, I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COMPANY, but business sense will prevail. By the way, the back end of the SGS (software generation system) was disconnected from the front end because almost all the front ends use the same back end (assembler, linker, loader,...). When you buy your first compiler, be sure to order the back end. When you buy your next compiler, you don't have to buy the back end again. -andy kegel just one more employee of AT&T Bell Labs
hart@cp1.UUCP (06/02/84)
For years we have described Unix as a very
powerful software tool kit. I don't know why
that description should be scraped. Are the
users outside the old Bell System that different?
--
======================================================================
signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez)
Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
Bell Atlantic Inc.
Silver Spring, Md.
gamma!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - aplvax!cp1!hart
======================================================================mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/02/84)
[ the bug is an optional (extra cost) part of this System V release ]
Well, well, I wondered when we were going to tackle this topic.
We always prided ourselves on supplying the `full UNIX <release n>'.
[ Silly disclaimer: actually, UniSoft's concept of the full system ].
We have done well with this because our market has primarily been people
who need the whole ball of wax.
Then I got System V. If I load it all onto the machine we have the large
base of out in the field, all of a sudden, no more room for users to store
THEIR programs. After a full distribution, plus swap space, you don't have
much left of a 20 meg disk....Solution? Make everybody buy a 500 meg disk,
of course!
No seriously, this IS a problem. My solution is to supply what is needed to
run with installed on the system, and the rest, partitioned into neat
little packages, is supplied on backup media, and can be installed on demand.
We have compiler tools in one package, accounting (acct and sa) in another,
on-line manuals in a third, games in a fourth, etc. This costs US money,
since we need to supply all the media to hold this stuff, but then, we always
supplied a full backup of the system anyway. My position is that the customer
has paid for it all anyway, so he should get it all. I mean, our kickback to
AT&T is the same whether I ship a floppy containg kernel, init, sh, and su
(basically enough to boot...), or if I ship 12 megabytes of software installed
on a hard disk. So why should the customer have to pay more for things I
have decided are less crucial and should be options?
By no means do I claim that a machine has to have the full distribution on
it to be worthwhile - most people only need a small subset of what comes
with AT&T Sys V. We have to try to make efficient use of the machine we
sell, or it won't be a good value. Why force someone who only wants to
run a spreadsheet to have YACC an LEX (and SNO?) on line. But until AT&T
starts selling me UNIX in pieces (okay, so they have started already), I
won't *SELL* it in pieces, although I may distribute it in pieces.
Except for the line eater bug, which costs $250 extra.
This solution is right for us, it may not be right for others.
Mats Wichmann
Dual Systems Corp.
...{ucbvax,amd70,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!matsboylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (06/03/84)
A number of people have made comments in defense of the partitioning
of UNIX software by various vendors to the effect that it makes the
software cheaper. I have to disagreed with this position since if
the software is sold to anyone, the vendor will have to have the
support personnel and in the case of resellers, they still have
to recover their UNIX licensing fee which they pay to Bell, er AT&T
regardless of how much of UNIX they actually package in the systems
they sell.
While there are some additional costs, such as phone consulting, if
UNIX vendors sell all parts of UNIX instead of breaking it up, I
think they will not be terribly significant. The only instance where
this obviously isn't true (that I can think of) is when the particular
vendor simply doesn't sell (say) the C compiler since said vendor
would then never have to deal with "how does this foobar work?".
The obvious reason for vendors spliting up UNIX when they sell it is
it's a good marketing trick to increase how much bucks they get. It's
the same type of thing that's done in sell cars or anything else,
make the entry price low and get them on the "options". From a business
standpoint it clearly makes sense and from a consumers point of view
it sucks.
As Steve Martin said, "Capitalism is not a pretty sight".
Hey, nothing's perfect.
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylanech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (06/04/84)
C'mon folks -- I, like you, am used to "full UNIX" -- meaning having run of all of section 1 AND the source to the whole schmeer. It is akin to having an infinite credit balance at a large department store... But if you refuse to recognize that having anything dreamed up by anybody anytime COSTS, you are living in a self-imposed fantasy. You want everything? Fine, you can buy it. But you have no right to spread your costs over the world at large, when the average person (not hacker!) wants only what's useful to THEM (and wants to PAY only for what is useful). Sure, yacc is a useful tool. But for what fraction of the total market? cc is useful for a broader market, but again: how many computer USERS are computer PROGRAMMERS? In your particular corner the percentage may be high, but most of the programs I write get replicated dozens or hundreds of times onto "field" machines that lack source, compilers, etc. If AT&T marketing has sinned, it was the somewhat minor crime of not making it totally clear just what was standard and what was optional for the 3B2. We might expect better of AT&T, but no one who has ever bought a car from a new car dealer should be SURPRISED at the confusion. There is even the hope that AT&T marketing will LEARN from this experience and improve on the situation before the 3B2 becomes generally available! Willing to pay for my toys, =Ned=
lamarche@micomvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
q References: <425@hogpc.UUCP> y
lamarche@micomvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
q References: <425@hogpc.UUCP> y
knutson@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/04/84)
So I don't need some of the tools like yacc and lex. I don't have to
buy them. Well hooray, I just saved some money. Ha. Nowhere have
I seen that the basic subset you get with the 3b2 is discounted
appropriately for each of the packages you don't get.
Now let's see, if I add the cost of all those packages to the basic
package, I get the cost of a source liscense.
Actually, I have no prices, so I'm exaggerating, but I wouldn't doubt
that it is close to true and there's no way I'm going to pay twice for
the software. Also, since the price of Sys 5 is bundled in with the
3b2, does that mean that there are no educational discounts on it?
I would assume the bundled in price is the price they are charging the
real world.
AT&T had better get their act together if they don't want to lose their
shirt.
Jim Knutson
ARPA: knutson@ut-ngp
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!knutson
Phone: (512) 471-3241jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (06/04/84)
In defense of the partitioning of UNIX software for the 3B2.
Everyone seems to think this is AT&T's idea. When the manager making
the purchase sees a list of the software he is paying for he is going
to start asking about what kind of discount he can get if he doesn't
buy nroff, the C compiler, and uucp.
Not everyone wants to do development on these machines. Some people
will probably buy it for a dedicated application (it would make a nice
center network node) or will just run vi and nroff on it.
In short, if AT&T didn't offer to sell the parts individually then we
would see 500 articles from people who were being "forced by AT&T" to
buy software they didn't need.
I think most people's complaints are based on the idea that their
manager will buy one and force them to justify getting all the neat
little goodies they want to play with. I'm not criticizing this just
pointing out that people should say so if it is their motivation.
(It would be my complaint except for the fact that ours came with a
full set of software.)
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerryjml@drutx.UUCP (LeonJM) (06/05/84)
<small match-type flame> It amazes me how people can complain so much about how much things cost without knowing the prices. John Leon druny!jml
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (06/06/84)
>From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) >Everyone seems to think this is AT&T's idea. When the manager making >the purchase sees a list of the software he is paying for he is going >to start asking about what kind of discount he can get if he doesn't >buy nroff, the C compiler, and uucp. >Not everyone wants to do development on these machines. Some people >will probably buy it for a dedicated application (it would make a nice >center network node) or will just run vi and nroff on it. This is all true and a good argument, however the reverse position is also true. Generally people want a language and a bunch of tools, whether they are database systems or yacc isn't really important, and from my point of view selling them a stripped UNIX system and making them buy the things they specifically know they need isn't doing them a favor. For the most part, selling a stripped UNIX system at a "lower?" price forces the price up for those users who will use/need a wide assortment of tools [included but not limited to us or at least me]. It causes the manager (as per Jerry's article) to preceive the system costing less, at the expense of not getting the "free" software [no flames, please] thus making it MORE expensive should the application change, it's scope expand or the number or applications increase. I would rather see potential unbundlers send the software along on an extra tape, floppys, cassette, etc. and use it as a feature: Includes 43K of software at NO additional cost!!! A lot of the IBM-PC compatible people toss in `3000 dollars' worth of software at "NO" addition cost to good effect. It worked for Osborne for quite awhile. Anyway, another approach would be to offer the excess software at a nominal charge so that it wouldn't price it out of the reach of those really wanted it ALL while still providing some encouragement to the inexperienced buyer to plan a little bit and/or "splurge" for that little frill. Prehaps the software leasing plan that has been mentioned in this forum is AT&T's attempt at this... As an aside, I think the person who suggested that disk storage capacity is a reasonable limit or excuse for not shipping everything had a good point. It doesn't appear (from what I know) that this is a real problem but it is an eminently reasonable determining factor. -- Chris Boylan {mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan
crp@stcvax.UUCP (06/06/84)
One additional concern created by "partitioning" the universe of common UNIX
commands and utilities is "what packages does MY product need to run"?
That is, will people trying to write commercial packages for a UNIX system
depend only on the core package utilities -- or will they specify that
they use one of the wonderful "tools" that isn't in the core package.
This isn't going to be convenient for anybody unless their are "standard"
definitions of what the UNIX "packages" are.
I would hope that people will make use of utilities like awk when
appropriate, but I suppose that they will want their product to be
completely independent and run fast (so it can't be a shell script).
I suspect that the bulk of the computer users knocking around
are not interested in piping together little utilities to do something
useful for themselves. The "toolkit" aspect of UNIX is going to be
completely lost in most of the environments it executes in.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the "toolkit" aspect of
UNIX was created because we developers use "tools" heavily and we
often want to do unexpected things that can be cobbled together out
of some general purpose parts. Further, we are up to cobbling.
The business user wants some particular set of things, probably doesn't
want to think too hard about doing other unexpected stuff,
and isn't interested in becoming a computer tool cobbler.
It is just a different world out there.
(so lets stay here!).
--
Charlie Price {hao ihnp4 decvax philabs sdcrdcf}!stcvax!crp (303) 673-5698
USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028ron@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/07/84)
It's not the partitioning itself I am complaining about, it's calling the resultant product UNIX that bothers me. -Ron
bytebug@pertec.UUCP (06/07/84)
> cc is useful for a broader market, but again: how many computer USERS are > computer PROGRAMMERS? In your particular corner the percentage may be high, > but most of the programs I write get replicated dozens or hundreds of times > onto "field" machines that lack source, compilers, etc. Why does having a C compiler mean that you have to be a C programmer? You should take a look at what has happened over the past several years in the realm of public-domain software. There are quite a number of computerized "bulletin board" systems around the country (world?). Software is put into the public domain by people who want to share their work with the rest of the world. Much of the public domain software which I'm acquainted with is for CP/M systems, and thus runs on an 8080/z80. Because of this, there is not as much of a need to distribute source, since the object will run directly. A lot of source *is* distributed, and through this sharing, programs evolve into truely useful tools! Sadly, this may not be the case with UNIX. If you want to run my netnews reader, you better have a 68000-based system that understands my type of binary files. You have a VAX? Then you better have a C compiler. Oh, you don't have YACC? Then how are you going to compile the "getdate" routine? You don't have to be a programmer to learn enough to compile a program, do you? You don't have to be a programmer to extract some public domain programs from a diskette and type "make". I suggest leaving everything on the distribution, and let the user pick and choose what he/she wants to load.
elh@edison.UUCP (06/08/84)
Our local ATT-IS rep stated that one could get all the packages that would be necessary to make up a "full" UNIX for a total of about $1000. I don't think it will all fit on the 10 Meg version and have any room left for any user programs. Ed Hepler
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/12/84)
>From: elh@edison.UUCP Fri Jun 8 09:50:14 1984 >Our local ATT-IS rep stated that one could get all the packages >that would be necessary to make up a "full" UNIX for a total of >about $1000. If this is true, I think the squawking about unblundling is premature. Try to get that mush software running under MS-DOS on a PC for a significant amount less. Consider also that this opens things up to non-AT&T suppliers of tools who could very well undercut even this price. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary