lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (05/18/88)
Sigh! For those of you who are as behind as I typically am, let me clue you in on a couple interesting articles which were passed on to me by a friend here at work (Hi Tom!). Digital News, May 16, 1988 Front page: DEC and IBM Ponder Alternate to AT&T Unix. Olsen says counter to Unix is possible. Infoworld, I dont have the date but would guess this or last week - front page: Alliance to Push AIX-Based Unix. IBM, DEC, Apollo, and Hewlett-Packard are set to announce the formation of a consortium called the Open Software Foundation to develop an alternate Unix standard build around IBM's AIX operating system, according to sources close to the companies involved. The consortium will be formally announced on Tuesday... The articles go on to describe this secret alliance coming out of the Hamilton Groups complaints against Sun and AT&T. What do you folks think of this "grand" idea of the creation of a third standard (previously System V and BSD could be considered standards in my estimation)? What impact will this have on the Posix effort? On development of portable code? Comments, flames, etc? -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (BITNET) We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (05/18/88)
In article <556@n8emr.UUCP>, lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: > > Sigh! For those of you who are as behind as I typically am, let me clue you > in on a couple interesting articles which were passed on to me by a friend > here at work (Hi Tom!). > > Digital News, May 16, 1988 Front page: > DEC and IBM Ponder Alternate to AT&T Unix. Olsen says counter to Unix is > possible. > > Infoworld, I dont have the date but would guess this or last week - front page: > Alliance to Push AIX-Based Unix. > IBM, DEC, Apollo, and Hewlett-Packard are set to announce the formation of a > consortium called the Open Software Foundation to develop an alternate > Unix standard build around IBM's AIX operating system, according to > sources close to the companies involved. > The consortium will be formally announced on Tuesday... > > The articles go on to describe this secret alliance coming out of the Hamilton > Groups complaints against Sun and AT&T. > > What do you folks think of this "grand" idea of the creation of a third standard > (previously System V and BSD could be considered standards in my estimation)? > What impact will this have on the Posix effort? On development of portable > code? > > Comments, flames, etc? As an employee of the Data Systems Group of AT&T I must admit a bit of bias on this topic. The following comments are my own personal opinion as an interested observer of the computer business for many years. This opinion may bear no resemblance to the AT&T Corporate position. I think it is clear that DEC and IBM are not interested in establishing a new standard. Rather, what they would like to do is destroy UNIX as a viable competitor to their own proprietary products. Before UNIX began to emerge as a real threat to their fiefdoms, DEC and IBM pretty well had their customers locked in to them. If you had DEC gear, you ran VMS and depended on DEC for your next generation of hardware. Similarly, if you were an IBM customer you ran MVS and depended on IBM (or Amdahl) for your next CPU upgrade. Granted, I am grossly oversimplifying here, but I think the flavor of what I am saying is about right. Then UNIX made its appearance in a couple of dialects. Few machines supported it, and little commercial software was available for it. It was essentially an academic playtoy. AT&T promoted it, and a number of software houses developed products for it, so it gradually became a viable product in the commercial marketplace. Also, many of the academics who enjoyed playing with UNIX in school became employed programmers who wanted to buy UNIX systems to do real work with. Finally, AT&T and Sun got together to merge the two main dialects of UNIX into a single product. Now there is a threat of a third real alternative to the DEC and IBM proprietary systems -- a commercially supported UNIX which can be run on many different vendors hardware. This is what DEC and IBM would like to destroy. As far as POSIX goes, I hope that something useful can come out of that effort. However, having observed such bodies in action in the past, what usually comes out, long after it is needed, is a standard that is so nebulous and watered down that it is next to useless. The standards that have been established as defacto standards tend to be commercial products (MSDOS, CP/M, etc.) rather than the output of international standards bodies. For this reason I have hope that the AT&T/Sun efforts will really generate an industry standard that software houses can develop their products for without worrying about the NEXT dialect that might spring up (like AIX). As I said earlier, as an AT&T employee I realize that I am biased. The personal opinions above, however, are based on over 20 years of being in the computer industry and having worked with equipment from many vendors (ranging from a Royal-McBee LGP-30 through Amdahl's biggest mainframes). Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/18/88)
In article <556@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >What do you folks think of this "grand" idea of the creation of a third standard It should be obvious what their real motives are. It must grate to have to pay AT&T royalties. It must especially grate DEC, who once had the chance to acquire exclusive rights to UNIX and weren't interested. (We're all better off as it turned out, though.) Notice that all the vendors in this ploy are ones who were pushing their own proprietary operating systems and were reluctantly forced to have a UNIX-based offering because customers demanded it. Old mindsets sure die hard. We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface. A true UNIX clone would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments), except I doubt they will produce one. >What impact will this have on the Posix effort? On development of portable >code? It has no impact at all on 1003.1 or the NBS FIPS, which are quite close to being officially approved. There could be a small effect on other 1003 subgroups eventually, although 1003.2 is probably far enough along to be relatively unperturbed. The effect on portable code is this: The AT&T/Sun and AT&T MicroSoft agreements to merge the only commercially significant UNIX variants into a single system would have made it possible for applications to rely on several important features of the merged system that go well beyond any official (e.g. POSIX) standards, just as the SVID specifies far more than does POSIX at this point. It is a rare application that does not need more support from the system environment than is covered by (almost-)existing POSIX standards. If the AIX system ends up looking entirely unlike AT&T's UNIX system outside the domain specified by POSIX, then portable applications will be forced to deal with logically unnecessary variations among systems, largely defeating the purpose of standards and imposing an economic burden on software development. (Note that this can also be construed as a complaint about what is actually accomplished by POSIX as it turned out.) The emergence of POSIX and in particular the NBS POSIX-based FIPS has handed the lawyer types a tool for challenging any Federal specification for a SVID-compliant system rather than just a minimally FIPS-compliant one. If RFP writers get the help of someone who really understands the practical effects of the differences between these two system interface specifications, it is possible to accommodate them both and ensure that the actual customer needs are satisfactorily met. Otherwise, there is considerable risk that the silly rules constraining Federal procurement will force acceptance of a system that does not satisfy the needs that prompted the procurement. (Yes, many of the rules ARE silly. They appear to have been based on an entirely bogus notion of what competition is all about, as well as misguided attempts to enforce legitimate concerns for impartiality.) I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and legal strategies rather than responding technically. If they're really going to develop an alternative operating system instead of adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're wasting everyone's time. (It should be obvious that none of the above is necessarily an official DOD opinion. I say this to forestall attempts by the same losing lawyers to exploit these remarks.)
karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (05/19/88)
In article <7922@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >It should be obvious what their real motives are. It must grate to >have to pay AT&T royalties. It must also grate to have AT&T try to dictate the exact form of the distributed product, with all the conditions in the SysV.3 licensing agreement. >We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface. A true UNIX clone >would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments), >except I doubt they will produce one. The press release said that the interface will be based on AIX, which is a port of SysV.2. IBM is already publicly committed to adding numerous BSD extensions, and NFS, to AIX. Is there any indication that OSF intends to write a complete, incompatible implementation? >I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and >legal strategies rather than responding technically. If they're >really going to develop an alternative operating system instead of >adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY >BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're >wasting everyone's time. What do you think of the Sun/AT&T decision to keep their code secret while it's being developed? I expect that they'll produce a good system, but others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors (and uneasy bedfellows). I speak only for myself. Chuck Karish ARPA: karish@denali.stanford.edu BITNET: karish%denali@forsythe.stanford.edu UUCP: {decvax,hplabs!hpda}!mindcrf!karish USPS: 1825 California St. #5 Mountain View, CA 94041
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/19/88)
a) creation of a 4th standard (3rd if they follow posix) shows that
someone values the stockholders over the users.
b) If they wanted open they could have inputs on real UNIX, as far as I
can tell. AT&T reportedly offered, and I believe that Motorola and
someone else took them up on it.
c) when tradeoffs are to be made, are the companies with the biggest $
going to have the loudest voices?
d) with AT&T trying to merge Xenix and BSD features, and promising to
conform to posix, and offering source, etc, why is their standard any
more open than UNIX? Sun has given and/or licensed a lot of their code
to AT&T and will then license it back like anyone else (so my Sun dealer
tells me).
e) now that Olsen has died at AT&T, why don't the users form a public
corporation and buy the UNIX rights from AT&T. Since the profit would
come from wide acceptance I would expect more concern with the
portability of the prodect from a company with no hardware to sell than
from hardware vendors who all want an edge. I respect greed as a motive
for portability, when someone claims to be acting for the good of the
user I suspect their motives.
f) In my opinion they're trying to kill UNIX with similar but
proprietary clones. Like killing flys by releasing sterile males.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mebenoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (05/19/88)
in article <556@n8emr.UUCP>, lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) says: > IBM, DEC, Apollo, and Hewlett-Packard are set to announce > the formation of a > consortium called the Open Software Foundation to develop an alternate My feeling is that very little that IBM, DEC and Apollo is open. I am not the only one I'm sure that ascribes ulterior motives to DEC and IBM ... (deliberately causing a split and confusion so they can sell more VMS, MVS, etc boxes). The announcement is just that an announcement. We will have to wait 18 months (by which time Sys V Rel 4.0 will have been out) for this vaporware. And it's not clear it will be worth all that much. The Wall Street Journal had some interesting comments by Bill Gates :"Look at it this way, Sun is so golden that it forced all these industry giants to band together against it." If Gates is right then the Open Software Consortium doesn't help DEC, IBM, Apollo and HP in the least bit. 1)The Consortium's standard is undefined as of the moment, 2) 18 months or more will pass 3) they all are on different architectures 4) they all are competitors and 5) people are buying Suns quite simply because the machines are a better quality product. Sun has managed to do things that IBM/DEC/Apollo seems utterly incapable of ... Having experienced Apollo's version of "Unix", I'll stick with AT&T... we don't need another version of Unix especially from three vendors that had to be dragged into the Unix marketplace ... now there spending their time trying to convince people how well they understand Unix marketplace. ....(Mr. Olsen of DEC showed his true feeling about Unix recently with his "snake oil salesmen" statement.) ----------------------------- Naturally My Opinions Are My Own and NOT those of the Boeing Company.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/19/88)
In article <21387@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >It must also grate to have AT&T try to dictate the exact form >of the distributed product, with all the conditions in the SysV.3 >licensing agreement. Oh, BS. I checked the licensing and sublicensing agreements and had no qualms about our signing them, nor have several genuine vendors. You're probably referring to the clause that says that the software provided under the source code provisions (in effect, AT&T's UNIX trademark) will not be applied to a product that does not meet their published specifications. That seems eminently reasonable to me; as a CUSTOMER, I want to know that what I'm getting will meet my needs. Vendors who wanted to market any old thing regardless of its properties could still do so under the previous sublicensing agreement (which we also signed). >Is there any indication that OSF intends to write a complete, >incompatible implementation? Is there any doubt that that is what will happen? Take STREAMS, including RFS, for example. It is rather hard to implement this extremely important post-SVR2 feature simply from the non-proprietary specifications (at least from those of which I am aware) without introducing SOME degree of incompatibility with AT&T-based implementations. >... others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an >unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors >(and uneasy bedfellows). Seems to me the noisy vendors had plenty of time to work out a similar deal with AT&T. Is it unfair for a company that sees a need and works to meet it to gain a competitive advantage thereby? I think not. (By the way, I don't know that they really will.) Or is "fair" supposed to mean that companies who haven't contributed to the development of UNIX are supposed to parasitically reap rewards from it? They should count themselves lucky that people even buy their systems after they spent years attempting to lock customers into their proprietary product lines. I agree fully with the fellow who sees the AIX ploy as an attempt to destroy UNIX as an open system. Let's hope they get what they deserve, which is loss of sales to other vendors who offer "common UNIX" with value added.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/19/88)
In article <2949@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: >I think it is clear that DEC and IBM are not interested in establishing >a new standard. Rather, what they would like to do is destroy UNIX as >a viable competitor to their own proprietary products............... >Granted, I am grossly oversimplifying here, but I think the flavor of what >I am saying is about right. I think you have hit the nail on the head! Those who develop on a UNIX based system right now will not be affected. If I use DEC hardware and they will no longer support UNIX, then I'll move to something else that does. What DEC and IBM are trying to do is stem the tide of people switching from their proprietary operating systems to UNIX by confussing them on the existence of a single UNIX standard. IBM has even more to loose than DEC in the PC market where they want people to go with OS/2. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) (05/19/88)
Let me preface this with the mandatory disclaimer: this *definitely* does not reflect the views of MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. In article <7922@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <556@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >>What do you folks think of this "grand" idea of the creation of a third >>standard? >It should be obvious what their real motives are. It must grate to >have to pay AT&T royalties. I don't think this has *anything* to do with their real motives. If this were the case, this would have kicked off long ago. >Notice that all the vendors in this ploy are ones who were pushing >their own proprietary operating systems and were reluctantly forced >to have a UNIX-based offering because customers demanded it. Old >mindsets sure die hard. All of the *American* vendors in this movement *so far* are ones who were pushing their own proprietary operating systems. There are no computer systems vendors of long standing *at all* who have been on a UNIX platform for any significant length of time (i.e., close to 10 years). AT&T was not a systems vendor, and Sun is an upstart as well, albeit a very successful one. Why is it if you're DEC, when you merge features of System V and BSD and add some of your own, you're evil violators of a standard, but if you're Sun and do exactly the same thing, you're the masters of an emerging standard? This Joy-o-centric view of the universe is a travesty. >We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface. A true UNIX clone >would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments), >except I doubt they will produce one. What *is* a UNIX clone? Something that will keep in sync with whatever geegaw AT&T and Sun dream up *this* year? Why should they be allowed a position of control? If a portable operating system is to be a standard, it must be *built* by a body committed to a standard, not by a profit-making entity whose motives are suspect. When AT&T was essentially a research body in the world of operating systems, this role was appropriate for it. Now that it is a competitor, it is unacceptable. And as for the subject of the lag: this may be trivial off in hacker-land, where people will incorporate code from alpha releases into their local versions, then re-fit, then re-fit, ad nauseum. In the real world of operating system porting, it is inappropriate to ship a port until the released version of the base product. If we receive a frozen Sun/AT&T operating system in July, it may take a vendor anywhere from six to eighteen months to ship its version, due to product management cycles, QA, etc. This "lag" which you trivialize would give a definite sales advantage not to *all* vendors of a "standard" UNIX, but to Sun and AT&T alone. An illustration of this is NETdisk, or Diskless NFS, or whatever Sun's calling it these days. Many of us have been showing code based on a pre-release of SunOS 3.2 for a year and a half now. Sun has, in my opinion, (a) procrastinated the release of this product they were allegedly offering in the name of "non-competition" until they had a server product based on SPARC which, while still no great shakes, would at least stay the defection of the server business to their NFS licensees, and (b) changed the product, disk layouts, etc. "on the fly" without freezing the specification until code ship on the 386i, which will prevent conscientious vendors from shipping a fully-QA'd product based on a frozen specification until 6 to 18 months from Sun's FCS. And as for "lagging in picking up new developments": since my thesis is that AT&T has no business in the standards game at all, its new developments are no more important or useful than anyone else's, and should not need to be "picked up". >>What impact will this have on the Posix effort? On development of portable >>code? > >It has no impact at all on 1003.1 or the NBS FIPS, which are quite close >to being officially approved. There could be a small effect on other >1003 subgroups eventually, although 1003.2 is probably far enough along >to be relatively unperturbed. > >The effect on portable code is this: > > The AT&T/Sun and AT&T MicroSoft agreements to merge the only > commercially significant UNIX variants into a single system > would have made it possible for applications to rely on > several important features of the merged system that go well > beyond any official (e.g. POSIX) standards, just as the SVID > specifies far more than does POSIX at this point. ...And POSIX and its follow-ons are the *only* standards that matter at all, because they are developed as standards should be. We cannot have our competitors ramming their ad hoc "standards" down our throats. > It is a rare application that does not need more support from > the system environment than is covered by (almost-)existing > POSIX standards. If the AIX system ends up looking entirely > unlike AT&T's UNIX system outside the domain specified by > POSIX, then portable applications will be forced to deal with > logically unnecessary variations among systems, largely > defeating the purpose of standards and imposing an economic > burden on software development. (Note that this can also be > construed as a complaint about what is actually accomplished > by POSIX as it turned out.) > > The emergence of POSIX and in particular the NBS POSIX-based > FIPS has handed the lawyer types a tool for challenging any > Federal specification for a SVID-compliant system rather > than just a minimally FIPS-compliant one. If RFP writers get > the help of someone who really understands the practical > effects of the differences between these two system interface > specifications, it is possible to accommodate them both and > ensure that the actual customer needs are satisfactorily met. > Otherwise, there is considerable risk that the silly rules > constraining Federal procurement will force acceptance of a > system that does not satisfy the needs that prompted the > procurement. (Yes, many of the rules ARE silly. They appear > to have been based on an entirely bogus notion of what > competition is all about, as well as misguided attempts to > enforce legitimate concerns for impartiality.) The point is that SVID-compliant programs cannot at the moment *be* FIPS-compliant. This is not a problem with the FIPS, but with SVID. Pure and simple, System V is a work of prior art which should now be adjusted to adhere to FIPS, as a superset. >I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and >legal strategies rather than responding technically. If they're >really going to develop an alternative operating system instead of >adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY >BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're >wasting everyone's time. They are *incapable* of adding value to an established standard operating system, because there is no such thing. System V is a widely used but proprietary system whose development and marketing constraints cannot help but leave other system vendors behind AT&T and Sun chronologically in the release of versions. This is wholly inappropriate for a "standard". The realization that UNIX is a two-headed beast, the world's only "proprietary" "standard" with people who actually like it that way (unlike the IBM PC, etc., which many accept but only grudgingly), has finally reached critical mass. If a portable operating system product can be developed by OSF that will support AIX and Ultrix applications, be available at the same time to all of its members, and conform to POSIX and its follow-ons, it will be a far more appropriate product for the marketplace than your alleged "standard", the AT&T-Sun proprietary operating system. AT&T could have headed this off long ago, by opening all future development efforts to a consortium approach, instead of blessing Sun as their saviour in the marketplace, then trying to convince the world that Sun's having access to signed-off code a year before the rest of the world will either (a) have no effect on their business, or (b) be a good thing. -- Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 25 Burlington Mall Rd, Suite 300 rogerk@mips.COM Burlington, MA 01803 I don't think we're in toto any more, Kansas... +1 617 270-0613
karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (05/19/88)
In article <7932@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <21387@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >>Is there any indication that OSF intends to write a complete, >>incompatible implementation? > >Is there any doubt that that is what will happen? Take STREAMS, >including RFS, for example. It is rather hard to implement this >extremely important post-SVR2 feature simply from the non-proprietary >specifications (at least from those of which I am aware) without >introducing SOME degree of incompatibility with AT&T-based >implementations. Are we still talking about an open standard? >>... others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an >>unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors >>(and uneasy bedfellows). > >Seems to me the noisy vendors had plenty of time to work out a >similar deal with AT&T. Is it unfair for a company that sees a >need and works to meet it to gain a competitive advantage thereby? No. I'm sure that the Sun/AT&T product will be a good one, and they deserve to profit from their efforts. Their competitors, however, can't afford to base their business strategies on what Sun might or might not deliver to them. Perhaps my use of the word `unfair' was misunderstood; I meant it to apply to the metaphorical game I'd just described. I think it's tragic that it's impossible to make real improvements to Unix without making big hunks of it proprietary, but that's the way our economic system works. >I think not. (By the way, I don't know that they really will.) If they don't, they won't be doing their jobs, and their stockholders should hold them to account. >Or is "fair" supposed to mean that companies who haven't contributed >to the development of UNIX are supposed to parasitically reap rewards >from it? They should count themselves lucky that people even buy >their systems after they spent years attempting to lock customers >into their proprietary product lines. IBM and DEC are probably EACH now putting more resources into Un*x development than is the Sun/AT&T combine. AT&T hasn't sold cheap UNIX licenses for altruistic reasons; they get a lot of free engineering done in universities, by customers who could never have afforded full-price software. The development of UNIX as an open system took place during a period when AT&T was prohibited by law from promoting it as a proprietary product. I appreciate the engineering aesthetics and the ethics of the people who created UNIX, and I hope to see those traditions carried on. Those are the values of the engineers, however, not of the corporations. >I agree fully with the fellow >who sees the AIX ploy as an attempt to destroy UNIX as an open system. >Let's hope they get what they deserve, which is loss of sales to other >vendors who offer "common UNIX" with value added. What the heck is "common UNIX"? Note that the phrase contains a trademark owned by AT&T. Getting back to my earlier point, any element of an open standard must be reproducible from publicly available, written specifications. It's possible to do NFS that way. It's possible to do PostScript that way. If AT&T wants to keep streams as a proprietary extension, fine. The customers will decide whether it's a critical selling point. You may wish to consider the added value in the AIX product before you assume that it will be inferior, either technically or in the marketplace. As has been the case with AT&T's UNIX, the software product may have a bigger impact than will the machines it's meant to run on. (I speak only for myself.) Chuck Karish ARPA: karish@denali.stanford.edu BITNET: karish%denali@forsythe.stanford.edu UUCP: {decvax,hplabs!hpda}!mindcrf!karish USPS: 1825 California St. #5 Mountain View, CA 94041
rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) (05/20/88)
In article <2949@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes: > >As an employee of the Data Systems Group of AT&T I must admit a bit of >bias on this topic. The following comments are my own personal opinion I am probably biased also, since my employer was one of the Hamilton group, but I like to think I keep an open mind on this topic. >I think it is clear that DEC and IBM are not interested in establishing >a new standard. Rather, what they would like to do is destroy UNIX as >a viable competitor to their own proprietary products. It is not that clear. The other OSF partners are not small potatoes. They *will* have a say in the outcome. What response would you expect from a group of vendors who have come to depend upon Unix for a good part of their business? V. Cassoni instilled no confidence that Unix would remain open as a result of the Sun/AT&T alliance, and Kavner don't know what going on yet. A wise sage coined the phrase "Actions speak louder than words." AT&T/Sun have spoken with their actions; IBM/DEC/HP/et al have spoken with theirs. Only time will give us the true winner. If, during that time, the proprietary OS software increases its lifetime, so what? There will be plenty of business for the benefactors of the winning open system: applications developers and customers, and there will also be plenty of business for the proprietary stuff. I don't think the open systems companies fear the proprietary stuff. Both co-exist at many companies, and both have their own niche. -- ------------ HL Rogers (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)
rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) (05/20/88)
In article <10892@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >b) If they wanted open they could have inputs on real UNIX, as far as I > can tell. AT&T reportedly offered, and I believe that Motorola and > someone else took them up on it. "Inputs" is not the only issue. Frozen code deliverable under terms that would not give AT&T and/or Sun a time-to-market advantage, and not optimized for any pre-selected and proprietary hardware base, is another, at least as important, issue. >d) with AT&T trying to merge Xenix and BSD features, and promising to > conform to posix, and offering source, etc, why is their standard any > more open than UNIX? Sun has given and/or licensed a lot of their code > to AT&T and will then license it back like anyone else (so my Sun dealer > tells me). ...with them keeping time-to-market advantage. Besides, OSF's standard is more open because it's not cooked up in a closed-door lab and handed to licensees after the fact. >e) now that Olsen has died at AT&T, why don't the users form a public > corporation and buy the UNIX rights from AT&T. Since the profit would > come from wide acceptance I would expect more concern with the > portability of the prodect from a company with no hardware to sell than > from hardware vendors who all want an edge. I respect greed as a motive > for portability, when someone claims to be acting for the good of the > user I suspect their motives. Because AT&T doesn't want to sell those rights to anyone, but rather, protect its investment in offering the only platforms which will be UNIX on day one of release, namely their own products and those developed by their soon-to-be-subsidiary, Sun Microsystems. -- Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 25 Burlington Mall Rd, Suite 300 rogerk@mips.COM Burlington, MA 01803 I don't think we're in toto any more, Kansas... +1 617 270-0613
decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (05/20/88)
Obviously, as an HP employee, I may be biased. However, I would like to clear up what I see as some erroneous assumptions about the Open Software Foundation. These are my opinions, not necessarily HP's. > It should be obvious what their real motives are. It must grate to > have to pay AT&T royalties. This is certainly one of the motives, but is not nearly the primary one. > We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface. A true UNIX clone > would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments), > except I doubt they will produce one. OSF declares itself to be a standards selection and implementation consortium, not a standards generating body. Almost of the standards OSF embraces are non-proprietary ones such as POSIX, X/Open, NBS POSIX FIPS and the rest of NBS's Applications Portability Profile, X-windows, and ANSI C. > >What impact will this have on the Posix effort? On development of portable > >code? > > It has no impact at all on 1003.1 or the NBS FIPS, which are quite close > to being officially approved. There could be a small effect on other > 1003 subgroups eventually, although 1003.2 is probably far enough along > to be relatively unperturbed. It has a positive impact on the use of all these, since these companies are now strengthening their support of these open standards, and as such de-emphaiszing their dependence on proprietary defacto standards such as System V. The OSF enables members to respond faster to these developments, and in a more consistent manner throughout the industry. > The effect on portable code is this: ... > It is a rare application that does not need more support from > the system environment than is covered by (almost-)existing > POSIX standards. If the AIX system ends up looking entirely > unlike AT&T's UNIX system outside the domain specified by > POSIX, then portable applications will be forced to deal with > logically unnecessary variations among systems, largely > defeating the purpose of standards and imposing an economic > burden on software development. (Note that this can also be > construed as a complaint about what is actually accomplished > by POSIX as it turned out.) Note that X/Open's Portability Guide started with SVID functionality and covers a much larger range of functionality than SVID or POSIX, that NBS APP covers some different areas than X/Open, and that OSF has plans to expand their set of included standards further. > I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and > legal strategies rather than responding technically. Who is not responding technically? What's wrong with marketing and legal strategies? What is "Application Binary Interface"? A marketing strategy. Marketing consists of assessing customer needs and finding ways to meet them. Unfounded marketing hype is deplorable, but I've not seen any examples of that with regard to OSF. Also, I believe it is unfair to complain that OSF has not "responded technically" when it's two days old. On what basis have you decided that it will not generate excellent techincal solutions? > If they're really going to develop an alternative operating system instead > of adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY > BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're > wasting everyone's time. What leads you to believe that "just a small incompatible tweak" would be what OSF will be developing? Dave Decot Hewlett-Packard Company
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (05/20/88)
In article <556@n8emr.UUCP>, lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: > > Sigh! For those of you who are as behind as I typically am, let me clue you > in on a couple interesting articles which were passed on to me by a friend > here at work (Hi Tom!). > > Digital News, May 16, 1988 Front page: > > DEC and IBM Ponder Alternate to AT&T Unix. Olsen says counter to Unix is > possible. >... Sigh was my first comment too. Then I talked to a person at Apollo and at least see why it is happening. (This is basically info that will be in my September column of MicroSystems Journal but that's a long wait.) Anyway, the claim is that AT&T and Sun are off making the ultimate version of UNIX while the other vendors just watch. Once the AT&T/Sun development is done, they will release the standard to the world. From a marketing point of view, AT&T and Sun will have a working product to sell and all the rest of the industry running around attempting to get caught up. The alternative, called Open Software Foundation involves a whole bunch of vendors (about 9 so far) and they are doing joint development on the standard and the code. The best thing that could happen is that AT&T and Sun could say, "Ok, you win" and join in. -- Phil uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl
rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (05/20/88)
From: "Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West" <res@ihlpe.att.com> Then UNIX made its appearance in a couple of dialects. Few machines supported it, and little commercial software was available for it. It was essentially an academic playtoy. AT&T promoted it, and a number of software houses developed products for it, so it gradually became a viable product in the commercial marketplace. Also, many of the academics who enjoyed playing with UNIX in school became employed programmers who wanted to buy UNIX systems to do real work with. Finally, AT&T and Sun got together to merge the two main dialects of UNIX into a single product. Now there is a threat of a third real alternative to the DEC and IBM proprietary systems -- a commercially supported UNIX which can be run on many different vendors hardware. This is what DEC and IBM would like to destroy. You left out what *really* made UNIX popular: Berkeley. But then, you *did* say you were biased :-) As for OSF, they should give their money and machines to the FSF. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> National Bureau of Standards Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688 The opinions expressed are solely my own and do not reflect NBS policy or agreement My name is in /usr/dict/words. Is yours?
jerry@xroads.UUCP (Jerry M. Denman) (05/20/88)
Concerning the proposed coop effort of IBM, DEC, HP, Apollo and others to start their 'own' Unix. Personally I cannot blame them if you look at their reasoning. AT&T and Sun go to bed together 'read sign agreement' Rumor mills say they may make Unix 'propriatary' AT&T recently narrows licensing agreement (execpt IBM &DEC who refused to sign) I cannot blame the other players for being concerned. My opinion is that it is a power play to loosen AT&T and Sun's relationship to inluce other vendors. Jerry Eat a live toad for breakfast and nothing worse will happen to you the rest of the day. -- \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s \/ (602) 971-2240 /\ (602) 992-5007 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day / \ ihnp4!crash!xroads!*
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/20/88)
In article <342@mipseast.mips.COM> rogerk@mipseast.mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: >If a portable operating system product >can be developed by OSF that will support AIX and Ultrix applications, >be available at the same time to all of its members, and conform to >POSIX and its follow-ons, it will be a far more appropriate product >for the marketplace than your alleged "standard", the AT&T-Sun proprietary >operating system. I've been developing applications for this standard environment for years, and as you put it I "like it that way". It was even worth the trouble of implementing a SVID-compatible environment for BSD-based systems when vendors failed to provide one. POSIX, on the other hand, was so weakened in an attempt to accommodate vendors' existing implementations (including AT&T's and DEC's) that it failed, in my opinion, to provide a sufficiently specific portable application platform. I will STILL have major porting problems going between POSIX-conforming systems that I do NOT have when moving code among SVID-based systems (not that the SVID is perfect, but it's a more USEFUL standard than POSIX). Note that I am NOT saying that POSIX should have rubber-stamped the SVID, but it should have been at least as "crisp". If POSIX had been more radical, for example fixing obvious problems in existing UNIX implementations (including AT&T's), it could have been a useful "neutral" standard that I could support as a total replacement for the SVID (at least in those areas that are covered by both standards), insofar as application needs are concerned. As it stands, I think I'll have to continue to use the SVID as my working UNIX-environment specification. The only likely impact POSIX will have for my applications will be the few small changes to the SVID that AT&T has committed to in order to accommodate POSIX, and the addition of a handful of new routines such as sigaction(). Vendors who supply just POSIX, or just POSIX plus non-SVID compatible vendor-specific extensions, will find me not recommending their systems for local acquisition. I cannot afford the added application software development overhead. The above is, as always, not necessarily an official DOD position.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/20/88)
In article <10650027@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: >What leads you to believe that "just a small incompatible tweak" would be >what OSF will be developing? Because it is constrained by NBS POSIX FIPS compatibility to remain mostly like UNIX (thus the "small tweak") and is not constrained by the SVID (thus "incompatible"). I may shift to Plan 9, if it ever becomes available. UNIX seems to have gotten stuck once it became commercially successful.
mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) (05/20/88)
In comp.unix.questions (<1228@ssc.UUCP>), fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >The alternative, called Open Software Foundation involves a whole bunch of >vendors (about 9 so far) and they are doing joint development on the >standard and the code. The best thing that could happen is that AT&T and >Sun could say, "Ok, you win" and join in. Actually, this may be the worst thing that could happen. In some sort of Platonic Ideal world, the idea of completely equal input in design and implementation would be great. In the real world, however, there are numerous examples of what happens why you try design-by-committee, and it just doesn't seem to work very well. I cannot see how these 9 companies, historically competitors, each with its own private interests and agenda, are going to manage to prodcue anything reasonable in a realistic amount of time (especially given that AT&T has the entire existing body of System V and SunOS code to work from, while OSF seems like it has to start essentially from scratch to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for copyright infringement.) It's really too bad that AT&T couldn't satisfy the Hamilton Group's desire for resonable licensing terms and equal *access* to (as opposed to equal *input* on) the SysVR4 work. Then they could have let AT&T and Sun do a good job on the core development and concentrated their own efforts on adding value for their particular machines and applications. Oh, well, it looks like we're gonna be stuck with the SysV versus 4BSD schism all over again. *Sigh* -- Matt Landau Let not a man glory in this: that he loves his country. mlandau@bbn.com Let him glory rather in this: that he loves his kind.
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (05/21/88)
> Because AT&T doesn't want to sell those rights to anyone, but rather, > protect its investment in offering the only platforms which will be UNIX > on day one of release, namely their own products and those developed by > their soon-to-be-subsidiary, Sun Microsystems. I assume you don't mean "wholly-owned subsidiary" here; the AT&T/Sun contract constrains them not to buy > 20% (or maybe 25%) unless somebody *else* tries to take Sun over. The "soon-to-be-subsidiary" is pure speculation; could *all* sides please try to improve the tone of this debate by refraining from speculation as much as possible? I suspect I could come up with several mutually-contradictory speculations about any of the parties on any side of this debate, all of which could, by a selective look at the data, sound completely believable. One could certainly assume that AT&T and Sun plan to restrict UNIX to their platforms as much as possible (given that both AT&T and Sun have 80386-based machines, of course, this means that '386 machines would be among those platforms). One could certainly assume that the OSF plans to "confuse" the marketplace to keep it from choosing UNIX (given that HP seems to sell its non-UNIX OS completely separately from their UNIX systems, I very much doubt that HP sees this as the goal; I won't make any claims about the others because I'm sure, for example, that *somebody* would flame bitterly either if I said DEC was firmly behind UNIX *or* if I said DEC didn't care about UNIX). One could also assume that the Trilateral Commission and the Bavarian Illuminati are responsible for the assassination of <fill in a public figure here>. By and large, little of the discussion I have seen on this issue - from *any* side - has contributed much light, although it's contributed its share of heat. My attitude towards it is best summarized by Chance the gardener's line from *Being There* - "I like to watch."
louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (05/21/88)
In article <345@mipseast.mips.COM>, rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: [much analysis of OCF omitted] > > Because AT&T doesn't want to sell those rights to anyone, but rather, > protect its investment in offering the only platforms which will be UNIX > on day one of release, namely their own products and those developed by > their soon-to-be-subsidiary, Sun Microsystems. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Where did you pick up that rumor? That just doesn't seem to conform to the style of Sun. Has anybody any further info on such a move? -- Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (05/21/88)
In article <7932@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: > In article <21387@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: > >Is there any indication that OSF intends to write a complete, > >incompatible implementation? > > Is there any doubt that that is what will happen? Take STREAMS, > including RFS, for example. It is rather hard to implement this > extremely important post-SVR2 feature simply from the non-proprietary > specifications (at least from those of which I am aware) without > introducing SOME degree of incompatibility with AT&T-based > implementations. So we blame IBM for acting legally? Or we tell them they have to copy someone else's code, in the distant future, and pay for it to boot? The statements are true, or at least I see no reason to doubt them, but life is hard. We live it the real world and I see no reason for IBM to sacrifice its market share, and improvements it may see fit to make to UNIX (S5R2) just so we can have one true Unix. Why not let IBM develop S5R4, and throw out "STREAMS" . . . or better yet, let Apollo and IBM in on the design stage. > >... others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an > >unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors > >(and uneasy bedfellows). > > Seems to me the noisy vendors had plenty of time to work out a > similar deal with AT&T. Is it unfair for a company that sees a > need and works to meet it to gain a competitive advantage thereby? > I think not. As a matter of fact it is not unreasonable (I don't like the word "unfair") for a company that sees a market need to benifit from satisfying it. And as a matter of fact it appears that is exactly what IBM, et al., are doing -- Sun and AT&T are going off and designing their own neato Unix, offering the world the option of taking a free ride a year or so later (more or less) and the rest of the world declined. They will serve their own markets, produce (more or less) ANSI/IEEE compatible Unix-like products and we'll see an interesting variety of operating systems. Each granting its own vendor some competitive advantage. Is this for the best? We certainly will not see an MSDOS or OS/2 kind of portability of software, but we may see more rapid improvement of the tools of our trade. Ask me next year. And yes, they had plenty of time to make the same deal -- and they were not able (or willing) to. I am not privy to what Sun and AT&T negotiated, but that deal is EXCLUSIVE so if IBM had made the deal SUN WOULD BE JUST AS OUT IN THE COLD AS THE 7 GIANTS ARE. So AT&T is the culprit if there is one. AT&T created this state of affairs (incompetently or deliberately, it doesn't really matter). > Or is "fair" supposed to mean that companies who haven't contributed > to the development of UNIX are supposed to parasitically reap rewards > from it? ... I find it a bit irritating that anyone would think my buying a product and then trying to use it is "parasitic" in any sense. Or does this imply Apollo and IBM are not legally licensing Unix? > They should count themselves lucky that people even buy > their systems after they spent years attempting to lock customers > into their proprietary product lines. I agree fully with the fellow > who sees the AIX ploy as an attempt to destroy UNIX as an open system. And the various enhancements Sun has provided are not proprietary? None have been posted to the net, none are submitted to Stallman for inclusion in GNU and (to the best of my knowledge) Sun would sue me if I ported them over to my Atari (-:). As far as the idea of open systems go, I find System V no more an open system than AIX (or MSDOS or OS/360 for that matter) -- it is totally defined and controlled by AT&T, we may propose changes or oppose changes, but the owner, author, and final authority is one company: AT&T. POSIX and perhaps GNU are open systems, and as I understand it IBM is committed to implementing POSIX (AT&T is not). > Let's hope they get what they deserve, which is loss of sales to other > vendors who offer "common UNIX" with value added. And again, is "common UNIX" defined? Is it what Sun and AT&T call it? And what value can you add, when you have to play catch up with a secretly developed standard. (In case you haven't got the point, I like publicly established standards like POSIX much better than private ones, and I would be even more vitrolic about a standard developed in secret by one of my competitors -- and a vendor with whom I am now finding myself in competition). Perhaps this is more the reverse, we have two companies trying to establish a proprietary operating system and deny the fact by calling it "common UNIX". Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP STB Systems, Inc. [#include standard_disclaimer.h]
david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) (05/21/88)
In article <10892@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >f) In my opinion they're trying to kill UNIX with similar but > proprietary clones. Like killing flys by releasing sterile males. There is a certain amount of precedent for that, just within IBM alone (at least, as far as IBM's actions seem to indicate -- I have absolutely no "inside information" about what goes on inside IBM, nor am I certain that I would want any). IBM has (at various times) made different (incompatible, to various degrees) flavors of UNIX available on several of the machines it makes. Indeed: in spite of the (fairly) recent announcement from IBM to the effect that AIX was to be the standard IBM port of UNIX, there is a product (available only to the academic community, to the best of my knowledge) called "IBM/4.3" that is (you guessed it) a port of 4.3BSD. I would say IBM has done a fair job of promoting the "splintering" of UNIX all by itself -- and (more to the point) of encouraging the mindsets that "there are lots of different -- incompatible -- implementations of UNIX out there" and that "there's no software out there for UNIX." I rather mistrust IBM's involvement with UNIX. -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{trwrb,hplabs}!felix!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (05/21/88)
in article <1228@ssc.UUCP>, fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) says: > In article <556@n8emr.UUCP>, lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: > > Sigh was my first comment too. Then I talked to a person at Apollo and > at least see why it is happening. (This is basically info that will be As if Apollo is an unbiased entity. Hey, these are the guys that are all ways telling me I should be using Aegis...;-( > is done, they will release the standard to the world. From a marketing > point of view, AT&T and Sun will have a working product to sell and all > the rest of the industry running around attempting to get caught up. For sometime now Apollo has been in excess of 8 to 18 months behind Sun with regards to Unix...(in my opinion ... i use both machines) ... they still as of today (SR9.7) have a discombobulated version of Unix...that's a *long* time to show no particular proficiency in porting Unix to their machine.... > The alternative, called Open Software Foundation involves a whole bunch of > vendors (about 9 so far) and they are doing joint development on the Most of them are a predictable lot of "closed systems" people...the last people I would trust. > standard and the code. The best thing that could happen is that AT&T and > Sun could say, "Ok, you win" and join in. I think that would be the *worst* thing that could happen for Unix. Besides why should they?????? We have been living with System V and Berkeley for some time... here is another schism....big deal....i can't imagine the Open Software Foundation coming up with anything better than what we already have....I like what I am seeing going into Sys 5 Rel 4.. X11/NeWS, NFS,RFS, a fair amount of Berkeley, Open Look user interface,... What does the Open Software Foundation have to offer...no NeWS, i didn't see NFS or RFS on their list, all they had was DECwindows, NCS, X11 ... not a wit about Sun/AT&T stuff .... Open Software Foundation = Open Software Fraud -------- Naturally My Opinions are my own.
lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (05/21/88)
Original poster names munged ... > >e) now that Olsen has died at AT&T, ... > > Because AT&T doesn't want to sell those rights to anyone, but rather, > protect its investment in offering the only platforms which will be UNIX > on day one of release, namely their own products and those developed by > their soon-to-be-subsidiary, Sun Microsystems. What does Olsens death have to do with this? From "The Wall Street Journal", pg 8 col. 4 - (reprinted w/o permission) "AT&T Suggests It May Spin Off Effort On Unix System to Allay Industry Fears" "American Telephone and Telegraph Co. might some day spin off development and licensing efforts of its Unix computer operating system to assuage industry concerns that they give AT&T advantages in developing Unix computers. "Such a spinoff isn't a possibility now, said Robert Kavner, president of AT&T's Data Systems Group, but "at some point in the future we could put ownership (of Unix efforts) in other people's hands." The remainder of the article talks about OSF and AT&Ts efforts in the computing business. Other comments from Kavner about UNIX were included. I was very suprised when I read this, I'll be even more suprised if it happens. I don't agree that this is best for AT&T, but it will definitely help the UNIX industry overall. Please read the whole WSJ article, if you can, before commenting. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems and Ohio State University Domain: lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Path: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!lvc (weird but right)
lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (05/21/88)
In article <13868@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > From "The Wall Street Journal", pg 8 col. 4 - (reprinted w/o permission) >"AT&T Suggests It May Spin Off Effort On Unix System to Allay Industry Fears" Oops. That was from the Friday May 20th edition. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems and Ohio State University Domain: lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Path: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!lvc (weird but right)
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/21/88)
In article <4137@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: >... We live it the real world and I see no reason >for IBM to sacrifice its market share, ... A company is not entitled to a "market share"; it needs to earn it. As a customer I do not see AIX as a separate line of development as helping me in any way. >System V no more an open system than AIX (or MSDOS or OS/360 for that matter) >-- it is totally defined and controlled by AT&T, we may propose changes or >oppose changes, but the owner, author, and final authority is one company: >AT&T. It's their property, after all. UNIX System V is indeed "open" in several practical senses; it is available for licensing at reasonable rates, and it has a fairly complete portable interface specification. In fact I can obtain that interface for virtually all the computers around here, and we have a lot of them from a wide variety of vendors. I cannot say that of "a future implementation of AIX". >POSIX and perhaps GNU are open systems, and as I understand it IBM >is committed to implementing POSIX (AT&T is not). POSIX is not a system at all, but a (not yet complete) series of system interface specifications. GNU seems irrelevant to me. AT&T most certainly HAS said that they will adapt their system to fully comply with POSIX requirements (at least 1003.1; I was there). >And again, is "common UNIX" defined? Is it what Sun and AT&T call it? Fine with me. Rather that than what IBM calls it. As I've said, I need a common application support environment that is "good enough". I do not need several somewhat different ones, even if they are "slightly better". These hardware vendors remind me of automobile manufacturers, although instead of negotiating with gasoline producers to meet their needs (for example, higher detergent content to accommodate fuel injectors) as is done by actual automotive companies, this batch would prefer to set up their own refining company. Those of you who made the mistake of purchasing a diesel automobile during the "fuel crisis" probably realize why this is not a good solution from the customer's point of view. I have yet to hear any praise for the OSF idea from the customer population (as opposed to the system vendors).
rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) (05/22/88)
In article <647@auvax.UUCP> louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) writes: >In article <345@mipseast.mips.COM>, rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: >> Because AT&T doesn't want to sell those rights to anyone, but rather, >> protect its investment in offering the only platforms which will be UNIX >> on day one of release, namely their own products and those developed by >> their soon-to-be-subsidiary, Sun Microsystems. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Where did you pick up that rumor? That just doesn't seem to conform >to the style of Sun. Has anybody any further info on such a move? I didn't say "wholly-owned subsidiary", you see. AT&T has rights to buy up to 20% of Sun's stock. -- Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 25 Burlington Mall Rd, Suite 300 rogerk@mips.COM Burlington, MA 01803 I don't think we're in toto any more, Kansas... +1 617 270-0613
karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (05/22/88)
In article <1938@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >What does the Open Software Foundation have to offer...no NeWS, i didn't see >NFS or RFS on their list, all they had was DECwindows, NCS, X11 ... not a wit >about Sun/AT&T stuff .... If they start with what IBM has in AIX now, or is currently adding to it, they'll have NFS, Distributed Services (IBM's file sharing system), and many extensions picked up from BSD Unix. In terms of features, next year's AIX probably won't differ all that much from System V.4. Performance? Compatibility? We'll have to wait and see, won't we? On both sides; we don't know how Sun will integrate Berkeley features into the one true UNIX. Chuck Karish ARPA: karish@denali.stanford.edu BITNET: karish%denali@forsythe.stanford.edu UUCP: {decvax,hplabs!hpda}!mindcrf!karish USPS: 1825 California St. #5 Mountain View, CA 94041
karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (05/22/88)
In article <8161@dhw68k.cts.com> david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes: >IBM has (at various times) made different (incompatible, to various >degrees) flavors of UNIX available on several of the machines it >makes. Indeed: in spite of the (fairly) recent announcement from IBM to >the effect that AIX was to be the standard IBM port of UNIX, there is a >product (available only to the academic community, to the best of my >knowledge) called "IBM/4.3" that is (you guessed it) a port of 4.3BSD. The ports of 4.2 and 4.3 to RTs are essentially vanilla Berkeley UNIX, not IBM products. They were distributed to encourage development for the RT platform, and to get IBM involved in UNIX research in the universities. IBM donated the machines (RTs) for that research. I suspect that 4.2A and IBM/4.3 were not released to the world outside the universities specifically to AVOID presenting two incompatible products to their customers. Is it any less valid for IBM to maintain a distinct internal version of UNIX than it is for AT&T to use Version 9 while they distribute System V? Chuck Karish ARPA: karish@denali.stanford.edu BITNET: karish%denali@forsythe.stanford.edu UUCP: {decvax,hplabs!hpda}!mindcrf!karish USPS: 1825 California St. #5 Mountain View, CA 94041
jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) (05/23/88)
in article <3173@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) says: > I think you have hit the nail on the head! Those who develop on a UNIX > based system right now will not be affected. If I use DEC hardware and they > will no longer support UNIX, then I'll move to something else that does. What > DEC and IBM are trying to do is stem the tide of people switching from their > proprietary operating systems to UNIX by confussing them on the existence of > a single UNIX standard. IBM has even more to loose than DEC in the PC market > where they want people to go with OS/2. I must admit I'm a little confused as to the basic argument by the Hamilton group as to AT&T/Sun having a competitive advantage because Unix will be optimized for their equipment (or whoever markets a SPARC based product). I always thought there were two predominant Unix standards, System V and BSD. I thought all BSD development was done on VAXen, hence all other vendors other than DEC had to port BSD to their own machines. So DEC had some competitive advantage because _if_ BSD was optimized to run on _anything_, it must have been VAXen. I also seem to recall that AT&T started distributing System V only for their 3Bx machines, so _if_ System V was optimized to run on _anything_, it must have been 3Bx systems. Yet I seem to see an awful lotta vendors porting System V and/or BSD to their boxes, and instead of whining about competitive advantages, they were happy that they didn't have to develop a proprietary operating from scratch for their machine, something that would have been a major investment. I don't understand the difference here. Seems to me as long as the firm hasn't fired their Unix people, and hasn't thrown away their optimizing C compiler, then their main disadvantage is that they may not be privvy to work under development. Were they before? If so, then its a real issue, but its still something that can be negotiated. All of this posturing is generating more heat than light, and it may just accomplish what DEC and IBM may want: a weakening of the proponents for Unix. It sure as heck is making my job harder. I want to buy machines that run one version of Unix. If that means I don't buy from DEC and IBM, that is unfortunate, but so be it. -- John Sloan, The SPOTS Group Wright State University Research Building CSNET: jsloan@SPOTS.Wright.Edu 3171 Research Blvd., Kettering, OH 45420 UUCP: ...!wright!jsloan +1-513-259-1384 +1-513-873-2491 Logical Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (05/23/88)
Of course, we should now also see the creation of OPCF, e.g., Open PC Founda- tion. OS/2 could benefit from some openness. IBM would probably decline to join, but perhaps the weight of AT&T and Sun would offset some of the loss.. greg.
stan@sdba.UUCP (Stan Brown) (05/23/88)
> In article <7922@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: > >It should be obvious what their real motives are. It must grate to > >have to pay AT&T royalties. > It must also grate to have AT&T try to dictate the exact form > of the distributed product, with all the conditions in the SysV.3 > licensing agreement. > > >We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface. A true UNIX clone > >would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments), > >except I doubt they will produce one. > The press release said that the interface will be based on AIX, which > is a port of SysV.2. IBM is already publicly committed to adding > numerous BSD extensions, and NFS, to AIX. Is there any indication that > OSF intends to write a complete, incompatible implementation? > > >I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and > >legal strategies rather than responding technically. If they're > >really going to develop an alternative operating system instead of > >adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY > >BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're > >wasting everyone's time. > What do you think of the Sun/AT&T decision to keep their code secret > while it's being developed? I expect that they'll produce a good > system, but others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an > unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors > (and uneasy bedfellows). > Perhaps what they are trying to do is avoid the long drawn out disertations that keep standards comitees tied up in knots for years. Perhaps not but I like to think good things untill proven wrong. -- Stan Brown S. D. Brown & Associates 404-292-9497 gatech!sdba!stan "vi forever"
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (05/24/88)
In article <10650027@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: > What is "Application Binary Interface"? A marketing strategy. In which way?
david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) (05/24/88)
In article <21621@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >In article <8161@dhw68k.cts.com> I wrote: >>.... Indeed: in spite of the (fairly) recent announcement from IBM to >>the effect that AIX was to be the standard IBM port of UNIX, there is a >>product .... called "IBM/4.3" that is (you guessed it) a port of 4.3BSD. >The ports of 4.2 and 4.3 to RTs are essentially vanilla Berkeley >UNIX, not IBM products. They were distributed to encourage >development for the RT platform, and to get IBM involved in UNIX >research in the universities. IBM donated the machines (RTs) >for that research. CAVEAT: I neither speak nor write on behalf of either SHARE, Inc. or my employer (who shall remain nameless, but who is a member of SHARE). Of course, I also do neither on behalf of IBM. Well, I found out about IBM/4.3 at a recent session of a meeting of SHARE. (SHARE is a group of users of IBM equipment; as of the time of that meeting, membership in SHARE was limited to firms that were running either VM, OS/VS1, or MVS (either MVS/370 or MVS/XA) on an IBM machine of 370 architecture. That restriction has just recently been relaxed to include the "high-end" model(s?) of the s/38, running whatever it runs, as well.) IBM has various classifications for the software packages that it makes available to its customers, under various terms. Rather than launch into a discussion about them, suffice it to say that IBM expects money in return for making IBM/4.3 available to a customer; based on that (admittedly loose) interpretation, I would call it a "product." I would not claim that IBM developed IBM/4.3 "from scratch," certainly; in that sense, it is not something that is an IBM invention. Nevertheless, there was indeed a presentation about it from an "IBMer" to a group of users of IBM equipment. >I suspect that 4.2A and IBM/4.3 were not released to the world outside >the universities specifically to AVOID presenting two incompatible >products to their customers. That may well be a contributing factor; I still perceive (what seems to me to be) an appearance of duplicity in IBM's actions. >Is it any less valid for IBM to maintain a distinct internal version >of UNIX than it is for AT&T to use Version 9 while they distribute >System V? Does AT&T make "Version 9" available to academic institutions -- for a fee? I was not aware of such a program, and it is from that perspective that I recorded my thoughts and observations. I may, of course, be wrong; after all, I am human.... david -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{trwrb,hplabs}!felix!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com
jeff@polyslo.UUCP (net.executioner) (05/24/88)
In article <21621@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >The ports of 4.2 and 4.3 to RTs are essentially vanilla Berkeley >UNIX, not IBM products. They were distributed to encourage >development for the RT platform, and to get IBM involved in UNIX >research in the universities. IBM donated the machines (RTs) >for that research. The IBM 4.3 product is not strictly vanilla BSD. It now supports X Version 11, and the CMU Andrew system, including the Andrew Distributed file system(vice). The system now also runs on the 6152 Academic System(ps/2 + risc coprocessor), and it has been rumored that in the last few month the 6152 has sold better than the RT ever did. >I suspect that 4.2A and IBM/4.3 were not released to the world outside >the universities specifically to AVOID presenting two incompatible >products to their customers. The original reason the 4.2A was not released to commercial customers was that it was developed by Academic Information System, an Independent Business Unit of IBM created to sell to universities. The development groups have recently been moved from ACIS to the new Technical Computing Systems division. From what I hear they are now selling the 6152 and 4.3 to commercial customers. Jeff Weinstein Computer Systems Lab Cal Poly State Univ. jeff@polyslo.uucp ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jeff
larry@tapa.UUCP (Larry Pajakowski) (05/24/88)
Please don't forget that DEC was eliminated from an ongoing Air Force bid of some $970mil (If I recall correctly). Being barred from almost a Billion dollars worth of business is sure going to make the likes of IBM, DEC and HP take notice. Larry ihnp4!tapa!larry
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (05/24/88)
In article <10650027@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: > What is "Application Binary Interface"? A marketing strategy. Maybe, but there is also a very good technical reason: an ABI is actually a lot easier to define (but still not easy) than a library-level standard. I have seen two ABI drafts, which impressed me as solid and useful. With the aid of such a definition, it would be possible for someone to write a Lisp compiler and run-time that didn't have a shred of C in them, yet would still have access to POSIX calls, and would still be portable within that class of machines. In particular, a VAX ABI would permit someone to come up with a new C compiler and library which used a more efficient calling sequence. Note that a system which can run applications which conform to an ABI doesn't have to be able to do anything _else_ with such applications: there is no need to provide a linker, disassembler, nm, strip, &c which understands that format. For example, given an M680x0 ABI, Interactive Solutions could extend their kernel to run such things without having to change else in their system, e.g. without having to fully support COFF. Sounds to me as though everyone wins the ABI game.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/25/88)
In article <21621@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >Is it any less valid for IBM to maintain a distinct internal version >of UNIX than it is for AT&T to use Version 9 while they distribute >System V? Not if their reason for doing so is the same ------> Research! While I was at Bell Communications Research I had the opportunity to work with v8 (the predecessor of v9). We had it due to grandfather clauses in the Judge Green matter. Anyway, it is not release outside of the few organizations within AT&T who use it and a few universities. It is the test bed for new ideas, like Dennis Ritchie's streams i/o back in the early 80's, which may or may not wind up in the product ---> System V. I working on an application where we started development under v8. However, we quickly ported to BSD-flavored commercial systems. We never intended to release our product under v8 mostly because it is not a supported product and our customers could not have access to it. We liked v8 for the software development environment that it coupled with the DMD 5620 terminal (Blit) afforded us. The vast majority of AT&T employees who develop under UNIX (there are many who work in the IBM mainframe environments) use the product ---> System V. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/25/88)
In article <1938@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >For sometime now Apollo has been in excess of 8 to 18 months behind Sun >with regards to Unix...(in my opinion ... i use both machines) ... they >still as of today (SR9.7) have a discombobulated version of Unix...that's >a *long* time to show no particular proficiency in porting Unix to their >machine.... And it is companies like this who will save us all from the terrible clutches of AT&T and Sun :-) :-) >Open Software Foundation = Open Software Fraud I like this saying!!!! -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
stan@sdba.UUCP (Stan Brown) (05/25/88)
> In article <10650027@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: > > > What is "Application Binary Interface"? A marketing strategy. > > In which way? In the sam way MushDos is a marketing strategy. (IE shrink wrap applications). -- Stan Brown S. D. Brown & Associates 404-292-9497 gatech!sdba!stan "vi forever"
stan@sdba.UUCP (Stan Brown) (05/25/88)
> Please don't forget that DEC was eliminated from an ongoing Air Force bid of > some $970mil (If I recall correctly). Being barred from almost a Billion > dollars worth of business is sure going to make the likes of IBM, DEC and HP > take notice. > Larry > ihnp4!tapa!larry Lets see if we can egt our facts straight here. As I recall DEC protested the Air Force contract you are talking about because it specifiec SVID. At the time DEC (I believe) a SVID compliant OS that they were selling to other markets, but wanted to make the point that the Govenmrnt (which can't specicfy vendor specific details) couldn't (in DEC's opinion) specify SYSVID as it was vendor specific. The result of the decsion was that SVID was NOT vendor specific but an industry standard. DEC was NOT bared from biding as long as they met the spec. Instead they took their marbles home & decided they didn't want to play if the couldn't set the rules. This situation should change when POSIX becomes a real standard as the government has expresed an intent to use it as theilr standard spec instead of SVID. If I have ny of this wrong please feel free to correct me. stan -- Stan Brown S. D. Brown & Associates 404-292-9497 gatech!sdba!stan "vi forever"
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/25/88)
In article <581@tapa.UUCP> larry@.UUCP (Larry Pajakowski) writes: | Please don't forget that DEC was eliminated from an ongoing Air Force bid of | some $970mil (If I recall correctly). Being barred from almost a Billion | dollars worth of business is sure going to make the likes of IBM, DEC and HP | take notice. | Larry | ihnp4!tapa!larry I'm missing something. Why was DEC barred? With BSD4.3, SysVR2 (and R3 I think) and Ultrix, were they dropped for some reason related to UNIX, or did they bid a UNIX contract with VMS? -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/27/88)
In article <254@sdba.UUCP> stan@sdba.UUCP (Stan Brown) writes: >didn't want to play if the couldn't set the rules. This >situation should change when POSIX becomes a real standard as >the government has expresed an intent to use it as theilr >standard spec instead of SVID. Your summary of the history of AFCAC-251 was pretty much in accord to what I have heard about it. The issue was indeed whether requiring SVID conformance as part of the operating system specification was contrary to government requirements for open and fair competition in its procurements. The finding was that SVID conformance can properly be required, although "passing SVVS" would not be a proper way to specify this. There is no such thing as "the government's standard spec". Each RFP contains its own set of specifications. However, once there is an official POSIX FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard), pressure can be applied to require justification for specifying something other than the FIPS. FIPS conformance PLUS additional requirements is fairly easy to justify in many cases. I could tell you how some Beltway Bandits exploit the Federal procurement regulations via legal wrangling in order to obtain contract awards that they could never have won on technical merit alone, but you probably already know about this. It does make it harder to write specs that ensure that the delivered goods meet the original needs. The above is purely personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect any other person's or agency's official position.
harrison@utfyzx.uucp (David Harrison) (05/27/88)
Here is a comment which I haven't seen in the discussion of OSF.
According to my Hewlett-Packard sales rep, HP was the driving force
behind its formation and approached the others about putting this
organisation together. Their concerns were:
1. The time-to-market lag staying with AT&T for all companies
where "the Sun don't shine".
2. The silly SysV.3 licence.
The company apparently agonised over the V.3 licence in particular
before deciding to establish OSF.
Since HP has made a huge committment to UNIX and open standards in
general (as opposed to some other members of the group) their
motives are probably not trying to kill UNIX in favour of their
own proprietary OS. Whether the effect of OSF is otherwise or
not, time will tell. I view the presence of the Europeans as a
positive sign.
And yes, I am very aware that my source is an HP *SALES* rep.
--
David Harrison | UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4}!utgpu!utfyzx!harrison |
Department of Physics | BITNET: HARRISON@UTORPHYS |
University of Toronto ---------------------------------------------rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (05/28/88)
From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@brl-smoke.arpa> I could tell you how some Beltway Bandits exploit the Federal procurement regulations ... Gee, Doug, I didn't know Edgewood *had* a beltway :-) (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> National Bureau of Standards Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688 The opinions expressed are solely my own and do not reflect NBS policy or agreement My name is in /usr/dict/words. Is yours?
dricej@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson) (06/06/88)
In article <10892@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >a) creation of a 4th standard (3rd if they follow posix) shows that > someone values the stockholders over the users. Companies who do not value their stockholders over their customers soon have no stockholders. The only real reason you even want customers is so that they will make money for the stockholders. In any case, if this product is so abusive of the users, why should they buy it? Why should the companies risk their stockholder's money developing something that nobody will want? >b) If they wanted open they could have inputs on real UNIX, as far as I > can tell. AT&T reportedly offered, and I believe that Motorola and > someone else took them up on it. I suspect that there is input, and there is input. I wouldn't be surprised if Sun had to do a significant amount of ass-licking to get their foot in the door. This was done several years ago, of course. >c) when tradeoffs are to be made, are the companies with the biggest $ > going to have the loudest voices? Most likely, but there's always the UN as a counter-example. >d) with AT&T trying to merge Xenix and BSD features, and promising to > conform to posix, and offering source, etc, why is their standard any > more open than UNIX? Sun has given and/or licensed a lot of their code > to AT&T and will then license it back like anyone else (so my Sun dealer > tells me). I think that the real problems are not with the license, but with the terms and conditions of that license, as well as the price. The price has climbed steadily over the years; my memories are: V7: $28k, 1980 $s, 32V: $40k 1980 $s, SVR2: $43k 1985 $s, SVR3: $65k 1987 $s. Note the bit of a ski-jump at the end. And these prices are the only ones that matter: the academic prices are irrelevant for most customers. >e) now that Olsen has died at AT&T, why don't the users form a public > corporation and buy the UNIX rights from AT&T. Since the profit would > come from wide acceptance I would expect more concern with the > portability of the prodect from a company with no hardware to sell than > from hardware vendors who all want an edge. I respect greed as a motive > for portability, when someone claims to be acting for the good of the > user I suspect their motives. This assumes, of course, that AT&T will want to sell. They might, but the price would need to be on the order of the present discounted value of the future revenue anticipated to come from Unix. Since I suspect that AT&T thinks that Unix is a pretty good product, it anticipates *lots* of revenue from it in the future. >f) In my opinion they're trying to kill UNIX with similar but > proprietary clones. Like killing flys by releasing sterile males. May be. Hasn't the industry been working at this since around 1980? >-- > bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) > {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen >"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me -- Craig Jackson UUCP: {harvard!axiom,linus!axiom,ll-xn}!drilex!dricej BIX: cjackson
jlh@loral.UUCP (The Mad Merkin Hunter) (06/09/88)
In article <581@drilex.UUCP> dricej@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson) writes: >In article <10892@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >>a) creation of a 4th standard (3rd if they follow posix) shows that >> someone values the stockholders over the users. > >Companies who do not value their stockholders over their customers soon have >no stockholders. The only real reason you even want customers is so that they >will make money for the stockholders. > I hate to say this, but in my opinion it's because of reasoning like this that this country is going to hell and large market share is going to the Japanese. I mean, I'm sitting here on a $4000 PC tied into a god-knows- how-much VAX that is in itself part of a networked system of 2 vaxes, 2 primes, lots of suns, and assorted printers, disk drives, etc. Why doesn't management sell this stuff and buy us pampered programmers pencils and paper? Hell, return on investment for that quarter would skyrocket, our beloved sharholders could then sell their stock for a tidy profit. If they are paying attention they could even sell stock short in anticipation of the crash 6 months down the road due to lost productivity. Granted, this is an extreme. But what do you call buying a company with junk bonds, then selling off the pieces to recover the debt? How about management going heavily into debt for no other reason than to make the company unattractive to takeover moguls? And what the hell does this have to do with comp.unix.wizards?? Jim -- Jim Harkins Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest, akgua, decvax, ihnp4}!ucsd!sdcc6!loral!jlh