rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/19/89)
In article <841@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: [discussion of nonexistence of PC BSD deleted] > Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD > is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain. Well, let me try to remove the mystery. You can like it or not; that's your choice, but here's why: They want to sell their systems. It's really that simple. Because they want to sell their systems (preferably lots of them; helps stay in business:-) they want to sell to businesses...or to resellers who will sell to end users, but in that case the reseller is the business. Now, try to put yourself in the wingtip oxfords and three-piece of a good conservative businessman: Do you buy the system based on a Real Product from a Real Business like AT&T, one which will Surely Stand Behind Its Products...or do you buy one based on some stuff out of a university, built by some longhair kids who'll be gone as soon as they graduate? (It's a joke, son...don't bother flaming. Yes, I know that, e.g., McKusick has been at Berkeley far longer than the average senior technical person stays at one job in industry.) In other words, it's the perception that the system is a product that has sold AT&T. I suppose that another plausible view is that using an AT&T system as a base offers more opportunity for a VAR to add value. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) (12/20/89)
From article <1989Dec18.180148.2051@ico.isc.com>, by rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn): > In article <841@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >> Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD >> is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain. > > ... Because they want to sell their systems ... to businesses ... > ... businessman: Do you buy the system based on a Real Product ... > ... or do you buy one based on some stuff out of a university ... I think it's simpler than that. UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of AT&T. Berkeley doesn't own any kind of UNIX OS. They improved it, but AT&T owns it. A user has to get the license from the owner, no matter which version they use. XePix (formerly Pixel) sold systems based on BSD, but (I assume) they had to pay AT&T for the license. Don't blame me, I only work here, and not for much longer, thank you. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM After retirement on 12/30/89 use att!althea!marty or marty@althea.UUCP Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/24/89)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >In article <841@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >[discussion of nonexistence of PC BSD deleted] > >> Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD >> is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain. > >Well, let me try to remove the mystery. You can like it or not; that's >your choice, but here's why: They want to sell their systems. It's really >that simple. > >Because they want to sell their systems (preferably lots of them; helps >stay in business:-) they want to sell to businesses...or to resellers who >will sell to end users, but in that case the reseller is the business. >Now, try to put yourself in the wingtip oxfords and three-piece of a good >conservative businessman: Do you buy the system based on a Real Product >from a Real Business like AT&T, one which will Surely Stand Behind Its >Products...or do you buy one based on some stuff out of a university, built >by some longhair kids who'll be gone as soon as they graduate? (It's a >joke, son...don't bother flaming. Yes, I know that, e.g., McKusick has >been at Berkeley far longer than the average senior technical person stays >at one job in industry.) > >In other words, it's the perception that the system is a product that has >sold AT&T. I suppose that another plausible view is that using an AT&T >system as a base offers more opportunity for a VAR to add value. You're forgetting something, Sun MicroSystems broke the rules and licensed from BSD. SunOS is all BSD 4.3 based with SysV compatable libraries. And the funny thing is that Sun hogs a lot of the market. I find it funny that Jobs is trying to crossbreed a Sun-3 and a Mac to make his NeXT box. I also find it funnier than CBM and Atari are making their own rendition of a Sun 3/80. Of course, I am biased since I work for a Sun VAR, but then again. I also am Pro-SCO, just wish they did everything more BSD. Also, remember, BSD put TCP/IP into Unix, AT&T did not. Networking is a big business and if you are going to need TCP/IP, why not have a kernel that supports it intrinsically? That's the exact logic that I think Sun followed and they damn near own the NFS market. It is a good explanation, nice try, but somebody broke the rules and came out as a major player in the Unix workstation market. Of course, nobody's going to give a damn after BSD and SysV are merged and crossbred into the next generation Unix. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (12/24/89)
In article <976@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > It is a good explanation, nice try, but somebody broke the rules and came out > as a major player in the Unix workstation market. Yes, sun is a major player in the workstation market, but part of that is due to thier system V compatability (since most govt agencies won't buy a system that is not system V compatible). Another point you may want to remember is that the workstation market is a very small segment of the total unix market. Last I heard there are more people using Xenix than all other versions of Unix combined. (Me? No, I prefer to use real System V rel 3.2). -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
cox@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Ben Cox) (12/25/89)
In article <976@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >That's the exact logic that I think Sun followed and they damn near own the >NFS market. I thought Sun *did* own the NFS market (having invented it and all)... Ben Cox ben@wri.COM cox@jolnet.orpk.il.us (only until 1/8/90)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/26/89)
cox@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Ben Cox) writes: >In article <976@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>That's the exact logic that I think Sun followed and they damn near own the >>NFS market. > >I thought Sun *did* own the NFS market (having invented it and all)... I'm taking into consideration that other companies produce an NFS product, although there aren't many of them. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
poffen@molehill (Russ Poffenberger) (12/28/89)
In article <2542@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> ben@wri.COM writes: >In article <976@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>That's the exact logic that I think Sun followed and they damn near own the >>NFS market. > >I thought Sun *did* own the NFS market (having invented it and all)... > Sun may have invented it, but NFS (and its underlying protocols, RPC and XDR) are all in the public domain. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
ritchie@hpldola.HP.COM (Dave Ritchie) (12/29/89)
> >Sun may have invented it, but NFS (and its underlying protocols, RPC and XDR) >are all in the public domain. > Are there any PD implementations of NFS for PC's? Dave Ritchie
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (12/29/89)
>Sun may have invented it, but NFS (and its underlying protocols, RPC and XDR) >are all in the public domain. I thought I should clarify this. While RPC and XDR are indeed in the public domain, NFS is NOT. However, SUN will license NFS for a fairly reasonable fee to anyone. john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com