dono@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Don OConnell) (07/29/88)
>From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) >From: kluft@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Ian Kluft) >>rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) writes: >>> Does AT&T membership give respectability to the OSF crowd? >> >>Actually, it was AT&T and Sun who were lacking in respectability after >>trying to steal the whole market for themselves. > >"Steal" is a very strange choice of words to apply to the owner (AT&T). Strange "owner". They didn't want anything to do with it's creation or even support until a lot of different people were enthralled with it. It is only the greed of the corporate environment that makes ATT want to have anything to do with UNIX(Although they are not alone in this philosophy). Signed Don "One who only has 2 cents worth to give."
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/29/88)
In article <4964@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> dono@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Don OConnell) writes: >Strange "owner". > >They didn't want anything to do with it's creation or even support >until a lot of different people were enthralled with it. Sorry to add to the noise, but that is completely incorrect. Bell Labs employees created UNIX with the consent of their employer. AT&T was legally prohibited (because of being a protected monopoly) from entering the software business. They nevertheless made the Bell Labs UNIX technology available under license, with an absurdly low rate (by comparison with commercial operating systems) for educational institutions. This was true since the early days of UNIX (5th Edition). By then UNIX had already started to spread inside the Bell System, and AT&T invested resources in this development. Various versions of UNIX were (and are) widely used within the Bell Operating Companies and elsewhere in AT&T, and there has been at least one official support organization in AT&T since at least 1976, probably earlier. What more could one have expected? Licensees outside the Bell System could not legally be provided support. All one got was one or two magtapes, or RK05 cartridges, and a cheaply-reproduced two-volume set of documentation, then the licensee was "on his own". (USENIX was formed originally as a mutual licensee aid organization.) Despite the lack of support, marketing, etc. UNIX caught on like wildfire. After Judge Green initiated the divestiture, AT&T could enter the computer and software business. It did take them a couple of years to catch on to the business, since the free market is rather different from the Bell System.
scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) (07/29/88)
> > >From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) > >From: kluft@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Ian Kluft) > >>rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) writes: > >>> Does AT&T membership give respectability to the OSF crowd? > >> > >>Actually, it was AT&T and Sun who were lacking in respectability after > >>trying to steal the whole market for themselves. > > > >"Steal" is a very strange choice of words to apply to the owner (AT&T). > > Strange "owner". > > They didn't want anything to do with it's creation or even support > until a lot of different people were enthralled with it. > > > It is only the greed of the corporate environment that makes ATT want to > have anything to do with UNIX(Although they are not alone in this philosophy). > > Signed Don > "One who only has 2 cents worth to give." Please note I am not responding for AT&T, just my own opinion. I simply felt that such unmitigated nonsense needed to be dealt with. AT&T, due to legal restrictions, was not allowed to sell or make a profit from UNIX for almost its entire early existance. Rather then leave it on a shelf until it faded away, AT&T GAVE it away to educational entities for the price of a tape. How many corporations have you seen do that? This is the source we're talking about here, not binary. When was the last time you saw a major computer vendor give source to any of its products to anyone! When divestiture occurred and AT&T was finally allowed to make money from all the inventions Bell labs comes up with, AT&T still provides source licenses to anyone who wants one. For educational entites, there is even a reduced price to allow them afford. Have you ever seen a source license for MVS? DOS? VMS? at any price? My, how greedy of us. When the UNIX market balkinized and UNIX begen to become incompatible with versions of itself. AT&T developed the System V Interface Definition at its own expense, in order to provide a standard for UNIX. This now enables vendors to make their versions of UNIX compatible with each other. Now customers are not trapped with dealing with one vendor (even ourselves). My, how greedy of us. When AT&T signed an agreement with Microsoft to allow binary compatibilty between Xenix and UNIX on 386 based products. This means that all the Xenix Application developers and Vendors can now move into the System V Area. My, how greedy of us. When AT&T changed the source license agreement for System V 3.x to state that no vendor could use the source code to create a UNIX which was not compatible with the SVID, this meant that no vendor could use our product to create a proprietary operating system which was incompatible with other version of System V 3.x. My, how greedy of us. As you can see I find your statement offensive in the extreme. AT&T is not perfect by any means, but show me another vendor which has worked as hard to provide a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems. The same philosophy which allows you to phone anywhere in the world without having to worry about what hardware is being used is now in the process of being applied to the computer industry. MY, how greedy of us. My advice to you and others is to make sure your brain is in gear before your mouth (or fingers) are engaged. Thank you for your time, Scott MacQuarrie Senior Technical Consultant AT&T Canada Inc. {uunet, utzoo}!attcan!scott The opinions expressed are my own and the reason I work where I do.
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (07/31/88)
IN article <3395@vpk4.UUCP>, scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) wrote: > When was the last time you saw a major computer vendor give source to any > of its products to anyone! [...] Have you ever seen a source license for > MVS? DOS? VMS? at any price? My, how greedy of us. It is quite possible to buy source licenses for MS-DOS and OS/2 from Microsoft. I don't know the price, but several companies have done so - IBM, Compaq and PC's Ltd come to mind. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (08/01/88)
In article <4964@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, dono@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Don OConnell) writes: > >From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) > >From: kluft@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Ian Kluft) > >>rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) writes: > >>> Does AT&T membership give respectability to the OSF crowd? > >>Actually, it was AT&T and Sun who were lacking in respectability after > >>trying to steal the whole market for themselves. > >"Steal" is a very strange choice of words to apply to the owner (AT&T). > Strange "owner". > They didn't want anything to do with it's creation or even support > until a lot of different people were enthralled with it. Sigh. Why is it that AT&T's roles and positions get so garbled in time, and all sort of nasty motives imputed, where none existed. This is probably futile, in view of the anti-AT&T sentiment of many on the net (part of the "Big is Bad" view of the world?), but my conscience will not allow me to remain silent. Be advised that this is the view of someone who was not in on the beginnings himself, but who has been around and involved in the Software world to have a fair degree of understanding of the history. I invite the actual participants to correct any misstatements I may make. The developers of the UNIX Operating System and of the C Programming Language were indeed supported by AT&T. They were members of Bell Telephone Laboratories, and were paid a modest but reasonable salary for their labors. They were allowed the use of some otherwise idle computer gear when they requested it, and were allowed to develop their toy operating system unmolested. When others in the Laboratories discovered that this "toy" was damn useful, company resources were used in many locations to make it available for use. I had the good fortune to be on the sidelines when UNIX was first brought up on a PDP/11 in the Indian Hill Computer Center here in Illinois (where we now have a huge number of Comp Center and private machines running it -- including the UNIX PC on which I am typing this note!). > It is only the greed of the corporate environment that makes ATT want to > have anything to do with UNIX(Although they are not alone in this philosophy). At that time AT&T was under the constraints of the 1956 Consent Decree which did not allow AT&T to sell commercial computers or software. In its "greed" the company allowed the Bell Labs people to virtually give away copies of the UNIX source to their collegues at Universities around the world. It was not totally free, of course, but no great sums of money were made in this distribution of the programs. The cost was largely to cover the cost of administering the distribution program (personel, media costs, etc.). Once the 1956 Consent Decree was set aside by the Divestiture of 1984, it was realized that the UNIX Operating System was a unique product of AT&T and could be used to gain entry into the computer business that was suddenly opened to the Company. Subsequently, it has been developed as a product, supported as a product, and marketed as a product. Is this "the greed of the corporate environment" ??? I guess it is as much that as it is greed that makes Apple Computer actually charge MONEY for THEIR products, or makes Microsoft actually expect you to PAY for a copy of MS-DOS!!! > Signed Don > "One who only has 2 cents worth to give." Let us hope that my own $0.02 can help to dispell some of the misinformation that runs rampant on the net. Rich Strebendt ...!att![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/03/88)
In article <3395@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: >AT&T, due to legal restrictions, was not allowed to sell or make a profit >from UNIX for almost its entire early existance. Rather then leave it on a >shelf until it faded away, AT&T GAVE it away to educational entities for >the price of a tape. How many corporations have you seen do that? ... Well, let us not credit AT&T with too much altruism. They were forbidden to sell Unix, yes, but they were also required to share their technology with others, since development of said technology was done with money derived from a regulated monopoly. They weren't *allowed* to just leave it on the shelf, if I understand the legalities correctly. >When the UNIX market balkinized and UNIX begen to become incompatible with >versions of itself. AT&T developed the System V Interface Definition at its >own expense, in order to provide a standard for UNIX. This now enables vendors >to make their versions of UNIX compatible with each other... Again, altruism is not the word for it. Do remember that there have already been two releases of the SVID, and nobody seriously believes there won't be more. What this enables vendors to do is to constantly scramble to keep up with AT&T's definition of What Unix Is This Week. Said definition being based, of course, on what AT&T is already delivering. It should be no surprise to anyone that there is a lot of enthusiasm for POSIX -- a *stable* standard which is *not* controlled by one company. >When AT&T changed the source license agreement for System V 3.x to state >that no vendor could use the source code to create a UNIX which was not >compatible with the SVID, this meant that no vendor could use our product >to create a proprietary operating system which was incompatible with other >version of System V 3.x. My, how greedy of us. See above comments on the Unix Of The Week. Yes, how greedy of you! >... show me another vendor which has worked as hard >to provide a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers >to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... Provided, of course, that they end up choosing AT&T hardware. Come now; this is really laying it on a bit too thick. There are many things AT&T could have done to make hardware independence easier, and they have done very few of them. The only reason it hasn't been worse is that AT&T has done such an inept job of making and selling its own computers, meaning that they haven't been a serious competitor. This is why various hardware manufacturers sounded Red Alert when AT&T and Sun got together to decide Unix's future. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) (08/03/88)
In article <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Well, let us not credit AT&T with too much altruism. They were forbidden > to sell Unix, yes, but they were also required to share their technology > with others, since development of said technology was done with money > derived from a regulated monopoly. They weren't *allowed* to just leave > it on the shelf, if I understand the legalities correctly. As I understand it, we were not forced to share any of our developed technologies prior to 1984. We were simply not allowed to make a profit from them because we were a monopoly. That's why Sony purchased the rights to the transistor for $25K (but not the exclusive rights). > > >When the UNIX market balkinized and UNIX begen to become incompatible with > >versions of itself. AT&T developed the System V Interface Definition at its > >own expense, in order to provide a standard for UNIX. This now enables vendors > >to make their versions of UNIX compatible with each other... > > Again, altruism is not the word for it. Do remember that there have already > been two releases of the SVID, and nobody seriously believes there won't be > more. What this enables vendors to do is to constantly scramble to keep up > with AT&T's definition of What Unix Is This Week. Said definition being > based, of course, on what AT&T is already delivering. It should be no There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added to the SVID to cover developments in various areas, particularly networking. This is the result of development efforts on our part to provide further networking and communication ability between machines and to remove the need for applications to be concerned about the netwroking problems. > > > >... show me another vendor which has worked as hard > >to provide a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers > >to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... > > Provided, of course, that they end up choosing AT&T hardware. Come now; > this is really laying it on a bit too thick. There are many things AT&T > could have done to make hardware independence easier, and they have done > very few of them. System V Unix runs on a variety of equipment which is not manufactured with or by AT&T. Your arguement that SYSV or SYSV-compatible operating systems only run on AT&T equipment is simply wrong. The only reason it hasn't been worse is that AT&T has > done such an inept job of making and selling its own computers, meaning > that they haven't been a serious competitor. This is why various hardware > manufacturers sounded Red Alert when AT&T and Sun got together to decide > Unix's future. No one denies that AT&T has had problems entering the computer marketplace. On the otherhand, if you consider that AT&T has undergone the largest reorganization of any corporation in history and the tremendous cultural changes involved in moving from functioning in a monopoly to surviving in a competitive marketplace, we haven't done that poorly. In doing so, we have also maintained the position of the largest manufacturer of phone equipment in the world and possess, by far, the largest share of the long distance market in the US. The "Red Alert" as you so quaintly put it, was the result of UNIX becoming a serious contender in the computer market and the company with the most knowledge of it (us) beginning a business relationship with a corporation which has displayed a sharp and aggressive ability in that market. AT&T has in the past, and will in the future, work towards creating a UNIX standard which will allow the system to grow to its full potential. Your comments implying a strategy to control the market or to create a proprietary operating system would be humorous, except for the concern that someone might actually take you serious. You obviously possess an unfortunate anti-AT&T attitude which is suprising since one of the things which AT&T Canada has started doing is to provide a backbone usenet feed into Canada, at currently our own expense. We have not adopted the attitude of the US machines and supply a complete feed to many machine, including yours. My, how greedy of us :-) Thanks for your time, Scott MacQuarrie AT&T Canada Inc. uunet!attcan!scott
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/05/88)
In article <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... Do remember that there have already been two releases of the SVID, > and nobody seriously believes there won't be more. In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: >There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added >to the SVID to cover developments in various areas, particularly networking. If there haven't been two versions of the SVID, why does my copy call itself "Issue 2" and list at the back a lot of differences between Issues 1 and 2? Page 4 says This issue of the SVID correspond to functionality in AT&T System V Release 1.0 and System V Release 2.0. Page 7 clearly states The SVID WILL BE REISSUED as necessary to reflect developments in the System V Interface. As I have found to my cost, Issue 2 is not always a reliable guide to V.3. Of course, it doesn't claim to apply to V.3. I think a new issue of the SVID will be needed when V.4 comes out, though whether there will be one or not only AT&T know.
der@sfmag.UUCP (D.Rorke) (08/06/88)
> In article <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... Do remember that there have already been two releases of the SVID, > > and nobody seriously believes there won't be more. > > In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: > >There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added > >to the SVID to cover developments in various areas, particularly networking. > > If there haven't been two versions of the SVID, why does my copy call itself > "Issue 2" and list at the back a lot of differences between Issues 1 and 2? > Page 4 says > This issue of the SVID correspond to functionality in AT&T > System V Release 1.0 and System V Release 2.0. > Page 7 clearly states > The SVID WILL BE REISSUED as necessary to reflect developments > in the System V Interface. > > As I have found to my cost, Issue 2 is not always a reliable guide to V.3. > Of course, it doesn't claim to apply to V.3. I think a new issue of the > SVID will be needed when V.4 comes out, though whether there will be one > or not only AT&T know. The intent of the SVID is to define the interface to System V in such a way that applications written to the defined interface will run unchanged on any SVID conformant system. There is also an assurance of upward compatibility of the interface. Applications written to issue n of the interface will continue work properly on a system which conforms to issue n + 1 (or any subsequent issue) subject to a specific evolution mechanism. The evolution mechanism works as follows: Components of the interface which are marked LEVEL-1 remain in the SVID from one issue to the next and can be modified only in upwardly compatible ways. Components marked LEVEL-2 must remain in the SVID for three years and during that time they may be modified only in upwardly compatible ways. After the end of the three year period a LEVEL-2 component may be dropped or modified in a way that breaks compatibility for old applications. A component may move from LEVEL-1 to LEVEL-2 with a new issue of the SVID, and new functionality which doesn't affect compatibility of applications may be added at any time. The above explanation is paraphrased from the document itself. The official explanation of the evolution mechanism can be found on page 7 of the SVID. The author's quote above "Page 7 clearly states ...." is taken from part of this explanation but is misleading because it was taken out of context (and I would assume reproduced without permission). To summarize: Yes, the SVID can be reissued but only in a very controlled manner that allows applications developers to know what components of the definition they can depend on and for how long. DISCLAIMER: This is my personal interpretation of the purpose and use of the standard and is not an official statement by AT&T. Dave Rorke AT&T Bell Laboratories attunix!der
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/06/88)
In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: >As I understand it, we were not forced to share any of our developed >technologies prior to 1984. We were simply not allowed to make a profit >from them... I could be wrong, but my impression is that one of the Consent Decrees required licensing on reasonable terms to all comers. I know of at least one occasion when lawsuits were being considered over possible refusal to release technology (although of course that may just mean that the potential plaintiffs were going to try it on speculation). >> ... there have already >> been two releases of the SVID, and nobody seriously believes there won't be >> more... >There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added >to the SVID to cover developments in various areas... There most certainly have been two separate publications of it, although I admit I didn't check them line-for-line for incompatibilities. It used to be all one volume, remember? And adding stuff to the standard definitely constitutes changing it, from the viewpoint of those who want to claim compliance. Note also that the SVID explicitly promises changes in a number of areas in the future. >> this is really laying it on a bit too thick. There are many things AT&T >> could have done to make hardware independence easier, and they have done >> very few of them. >System V Unix runs on a variety of equipment which is not manufactured with >or by AT&T. Your arguement that SYSV or SYSV-compatible operating systems only >run on AT&T equipment is simply wrong. That's not what I said, and not what I meant. I didn't say it would not run on non-AT&T equipment; I said AT&T was making no serious attempt to make it easy to port it to non-AT&T equipment. Last time I looked, SysV still had quite a bit of code that dereferences NULL pointers, a known portability problem (and coding error) that AT&T has made no effort to fix. You were the one claiming that they were bending over backwards to make it portable; well, when are they going to fix the NULL-pointer bugs? >The "Red Alert" as you so quaintly put it, was the result of UNIX >becoming a serious contender in the computer market and the company >with the most knowledge of it (us) beginning a business relationship >with a corporation which has displayed a sharp and aggressive ability >in that market. It was the result of the company with the most influence on Unix, AT&T, which is simultaneously the supplier of Unix and the setter of de-facto standards for it, allying itself with one particular hardware supplier. Many people see this as a major conflict of interest for AT&T; how can it remain the paragon of evenhandedness that you claim it is, when it has climbed into bed with one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others? >AT&T has in the past, and will in the future, work towards creating a >UNIX standard which will allow the system to grow to its full potential. Its full potential as a source of revenue for AT&T. That is how profit- making corporations, like AT&T nowadays, work. This does not necessarily have anything to do with its full potential as useful software for the rest of us. In particular, note that changing the rules regularly, so that AT&T and its intimate partners consistently stay ahead of the rest of the manufacturers, is very much in the financial best interests of AT&T and its stockholders. AT&T is not a philanthropic institution; it is required to put the interests of its stockholders first. >Your comments implying a strategy to control the market or to create a >proprietary operating system would be humorous, except for the concern >that someone might actually take you serious. I am by no means the first one to suggest this, so don't credit me with any special paranoia or influence. Ask the OSF people, if you really want an earful. >You obviously possess an unfortunate anti-AT&T attitude which is >suprising since one of the things which AT&T Canada has started doing >is to provide a backbone usenet feed into Canada, at currently our own >expense... I'm not anti-AT&T, I'm anti-certain-AT&T-policies. I am pleased and grateful for AT&T Canada's support of Usenet hereabouts, but I am not bribable (not at this price, anyway!) and do not see that the two issues are connected. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/06/88)
In article <1275@sfmag.UUCP> der@sfmag.UUCP (D.Rorke) writes: >> In article <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> > ... Do remember that there have already been two releases of the SVID, >> > and nobody seriously believes there won't be more. >> In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: >> >There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added >> >to the SVID to cover developments in various areas, particularly networking. and I quoted the SVID itself to prove that there _have_ been two releases, and are _expected_ to be more. D.Rorke writes at length as if I had attacked the SVID. I think every UNIX programmer who seriously cares about portability between various UNIX systems should have a copy and should check things for himself. I left a lot of stuff out about AT&Ts "future directions", thinking that anyone who really wants to know should get the SVID and do his own reading. >To summarize: Yes, the SVID can be reissued but only in a very controlled >manner that allows applications developers to know what components >of the definition they can depend on and for how long. To summarize: the SVID is good news for applications developers. It says quite clearly what can't be DELETED in a hurry. But it is nevertheless the case that AT&T _could_ ADD enormous chunks to the SVID without warning (for example, streams) which is _not_ good news for UNIX vendors, and that was Henry Spencer's original point.
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (08/07/88)
In article <1988Aug5.211217.21037@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: # In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: # >> this is really laying it on a bit too thick. There are many things AT&T # >> could have done to make hardware independence easier, and they have done # >> very few of them. # >System V Unix runs on a variety of equipment which is not manufactured with # >or by AT&T. Your arguement that SYSV or SYSV-compatible operating systems only # >run on AT&T equipment is simply wrong. # # That's not what I said, and not what I meant. I didn't say it would not run # on non-AT&T equipment; I said AT&T was making no serious attempt to make it # easy to port it to non-AT&T equipment. Last time I looked, SysV still had # quite a bit of code that dereferences NULL pointers, a known portability # problem (and coding error) that AT&T has made no effort to fix. You were # the one claiming that they were bending over backwards to make it portable; # well, when are they going to fix the NULL-pointer bugs? Henry, you're the one who seems to be whomping the straw man now. If MacQuarrie ever "claim[ed] that [AT&T is] bending over backwards to make [System V] portable" I sure missed it, and can't find it in a few days' worth of comp.unix.wizards here. The most I recall seeing was a denial of what appears to have been an insinuation on your part that AT&T is trying to keep its code NONPORTABLE. Please feel free to mail me a copy of the "smoking gun" if you have it. By the way, code which dereferences NULL pointers hurts some AT&T hardware too (i.e., the 3B20, which doesn't have a 0 byte at location 0 in the process space). Somehow, several releases of System V have been brought up on it just the same and work great. Must be a fluke. Incidentally, I know of no provision in the AT&T System V license which says that if you wish to port System V to a new base, that you may not fix any problems in the code even though the result still meets the SVID. If you know otherwise, please feel free to quote chapter and verse. Oh yes, since you're, well, not exactly entranced with SUN's partnership with AT&T, let me point out in respect to the very issue you complained about, both the Sun-3 and Sun-4 don't like *((char *)0). They get a memory fault from that (I tried it using /usr/5bin/cc, the System V universe SUN C compiler). If AT&T is trying to keep System V unportable by keeping the dereference of NULL in its code, then it is hurting SUN's ports of future releases of System V. Anyone with reason would conclude that it's in AT&T's financial interest (GAA, there's that DIRTY word again :-) to have quality code, and that poor quality code can only hurt AT&T. If you're going to hint at a conspiracy, you're going to have to come up with other evidence than code bugs. By the way, I am only talking as an interested party. I'm in CAD tool support, not UNIX system development, and I do not purport to speak for AT&T itself. -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | Bell Labs Area 61 (R.I.P., TTY)| AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T. | Skokie, Illinois | |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----|
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (08/08/88)
In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: |In article <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: |> >... show me another vendor which has worked as hard |> >to provide a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers |> >to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... |> |> Provided, of course, that they end up choosing AT&T hardware. | |System V Unix runs on a variety of equipment which is not manufactured with |or by AT&T. Your arguement that SYSV or SYSV-compatible operating systems only |run on AT&T equipment is simply wrong. True, true. In fact, having dealt with both the 3b2 and 3b5 computers from AT&T, I'd say it doesn't even run particularly well on AT&T hardware. Seems to work nicely elsewhere, though. (Hmm, that 3b5 is making a wonderful doorstop...) jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/09/88)
In article <2843@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >Henry, you're the one who seems to be whomping the straw man now. If >MacQuarrie ever "claim[ed] that [AT&T is] bending over backwards to make >[System V] portable" I sure missed it... Lest we forget, his actual words were: ... show me another vendor which has worked as hard to provide a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... >By the way, code which dereferences NULL pointers hurts some AT&T hardware too >(i.e., the 3B20, which doesn't have a 0 byte at location 0 in the process >space). Somehow, several releases of System V have been brought up on it... If I'm not mistaken, the 3B20 may not have a 0 at 0, but it does permit accesses to location 0. And yes, there are things in System V that break if this isn't possible. >Incidentally, I know of no provision in the AT&T System V license which says >that if you wish to port System V to a new base, that you may not fix any >problems in the code even though the result still meets the SVID. If you >know otherwise, please feel free to quote chapter and verse. There is no legal requirement to avoid fixing code problems. However, a lot of people get really tired of doing it over and over again in each new release of System V. My understanding is that AT&T has, in the past, taken the position that *NULL is a problem with those other, inferior, machines, and not a bug in the AT&T code. >Oh yes, since you're, well, not exactly entranced with SUN's partnership with >AT&T, let me point out in respect to the very issue you complained about, both >the Sun-3 and Sun-4 don't like *((char *)0)... Quite true, and in fact Sun did most of the work on cleaning up the *NULL problems in 4BSD. AT&T is probably going to have to get its act together on this issue now that it is committed to support Sun hardware; about time! >If AT&T is trying >to keep System V unportable by keeping the dereference of NULL in its >code, then it is hurting SUN's ports of future releases of System V. Actually, I don't think this was a deliberate effort to keep SysV unportable, just a convenient happenstance that AT&T didn't see any reason to do anything about. Much of this unwillingness was probably the result of management stupidity -- simply not realizing that *NULL is a bug even if the machine doesn't object to it -- rather than deliberate sinister intent. >Anyone with reason would conclude that it's in AT&T's financial interest >(GAA, there's that DIRTY word again :-) to have quality code, and that poor >quality code can only hurt AT&T. If you're going to hint at a conspiracy, >you're going to have to come up with other evidence than code bugs. To rephrase: "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity". I'm not suggesting conspiracy, rather the combination of stupidity and sheer lack of concern for the problems of non-AT&T machines. Anyone with reason would indeed conclude that fixing bugs is in AT&T's best interests, but reason is in much shorter supply in this business than many people realize. Spending money and resources fixing bugs that aren't making trouble today (except for one's competitors) requires a long view and quite a bit of determination, not things that the computer side of AT&T management has been noted for. (Sort of odd, since the telephone side is -- or at least used to be -- quite accustomed to planning decades ahead.) -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/09/88)
As quoted from <258@quintus.UUCP> by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): +--------------- | To summarize: the SVID is good news for applications developers. It says | quite clearly what can't be DELETED in a hurry. But it is nevertheless the | case that AT&T _could_ ADD enormous chunks to the SVID without warning (for | example, streams) which is _not_ good news for UNIX vendors, and that was | Henry Spencer's original point. +--------------- A few years ago, people were bitching about the System V standard because it didn't include networking. Now they're bitching because there's a mechanism for adding such missing pieces?! A little less heat, please, and a little more light. Not to mention just a bit more so-called "common" sense. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc
dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) (08/09/88)
In article <1988Aug5.211217.21037@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <3396@vpk4.UUCP> scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes: > >As I understand it, we were not forced to share any of our developed > >technologies prior to 1984. We were simply not allowed to make a profit > >from them... > > I could be wrong, but my impression is that one of the Consent Decrees > required licensing on reasonable terms to all comers. I know of at > least one occasion when lawsuits were being considered over possible > refusal to release technology (although of course that may just mean > that the potential plaintiffs were going to try it on speculation). > i also believe that we were under no obligation to provide our developed technologies. i do remember someone attempting to get such technologies thru an argument that went like: "public money funds the phone company so we should have a right to anything they develop". i believe that we were a regulated monopoly and not a public utility. > > That's not what I said, and not what I meant. I didn't say it would not run > on non-AT&T equipment; I said AT&T was making no serious attempt to make it > easy to port it to non-AT&T equipment. Last time I looked, SysV still had > quite a bit of code that dereferences NULL pointers, a known portability > problem (and coding error) that AT&T has made no effort to fix. You were > the one claiming that they were bending over backwards to make it portable; > well, when are they going to fix the NULL-pointer bugs? > is this really a portability issue or is this an issue of supporting a base of applications out there that dereferences NULLs? are you confusing application portability with operating system portability? as far as operating system portability, it seems that both at&t and sun have BENT OVER BACKWARDS to increase the portability of the operating system over the past 5 years. while everyone was taking nasty pokes at the fact that System V did not have demand paging for so many years, people at at&t were working on an architecture that would be portable. the regions based architecture turned out to be pretty nice. sun has also done quite a bit of work on isolating hardware dependencies. and perhaps the driving force behind this is not altruism. both at&t and sun have found themselves selling and supporting a number of different processors. it behooves everyone involved if the the differences were easily identified and localized. anyone who has been tracking the kernel source would know that hardware dependencies are getting more and more localized in the source. it is pretty ridiculous to me how anyone can claim that the system can possibly be optimized for a particular architecture when SVID talks about user interfaces and kernel source is available to adapt to one's architecture. sure, a certain model of computation is assumed, but the parallel machine people aren't crying foul, its the people with the same old tired machines. (oops starting to preach). > > It was the result of the company with the most influence on Unix, AT&T, > which is simultaneously the supplier of Unix and the setter of de-facto > standards for it, allying itself with one particular hardware supplier. > Many people see this as a major conflict of interest for AT&T; how can > it remain the paragon of evenhandedness that you claim it is, when it has > climbed into bed with one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others? > there is only a conflict of interest if one believes that a particular hardware architecture can really affect a specification for a user/programmer interface. i don't know if this has been addressed but, has anyone named one aspect of the SVID that actually gives either the 3b2 or SPARC an advantage? > > Its full potential as a source of revenue for AT&T. That is how profit- > making corporations, like AT&T nowadays, work. This does not necessarily > have anything to do with its full potential as useful software for the > rest of us. In particular, note that changing the rules regularly, so > that AT&T and its intimate partners consistently stay ahead of the rest > of the manufacturers, is very much in the financial best interests of AT&T > and its stockholders. AT&T is not a philanthropic institution; it is > required to put the interests of its stockholders first. > > I'm not anti-AT&T, I'm anti-certain-AT&T-policies. I am pleased and > grateful for AT&T Canada's support of Usenet hereabouts, but I am not > bribable (not at this price, anyway!) and do not see that the two issues > are connected. i don't really see how the two are connected either except that i don't see how at&t's support of usenet can be seen as anything but philanthropic. has nothing to do with at&t's designs on System V, but it does show that we do have alot to be grateful for. at&t (and any large corporation) is made up of many different people, departments, etc. even if some "policy maker" thought it would be a good idea to "optimize" System V for the 3b2, for example, i for one could not see how it could be done given that source is distributed and given that such high level source has been organized to isolate and localize machine dependencies. and i believe that the founders of osf have different desires and goals. while i believe that those members of osf whose systems depend on a widely accessible "definition" of the unix operating system truly felt locked out, i believe that at least two founding members have goals other than what is stated. open systems are still the last thing on both ibm's and dec's minds (here i am talking about the higher ups...not the people who are working on open systems within their respective companies). the majority of the systems they sell are proprietary and none of the talk of open systems has changed the way they market their main money makers. i myself am most paranoid and imagine the worst possible scenarios. perhaps someone out there can answer some questions about osf independence from its founders. for example, to whom must a non-profit corporate answer to? does it have stockholders? is it possbile for a large corporation to buy up a non-profit organization? (here i am assuming that the osf is a non-profit corporation). if the osf were to gain a large share of the unix market, is there any possible way for ibm to yank its porting base away and make it proprietary (or at least charge outrageous prices for it)? any opinions i have expressed are my own. danny chen att!homxc!dwc
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (08/10/88)
> >By the way, code which dereferences NULL pointers hurts some AT&T hardware too > >(i.e., the 3B20, which doesn't have a 0 byte at location 0 in the process > >space). Somehow, several releases of System V have been brought up on it... > > If I'm not mistaken, the 3B20 may not have a 0 at 0, but it does permit > accesses to location 0. And yes, there are things in System V that break > if this isn't possible. If you look at the source for tabs in Sys V.2 you will see that *0 on a 3b points to "f(". After all, isn't this the "portable" way for check to see if a pointer is null? if (err <= 0 || columns <= 0 || strcmp(set_tab,"f(") == 0) { (They finally fixed this in Sys V.3)
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (08/10/88)
In article <12118@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
< [some nice comments about the SVID]
< A little less heat, please, and a little more light. Not to mention just a
< bit more so-called "common" sense.
Hey, forget it. Common sense belongs in talk.bizarre :-).
--
Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy
friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl
-------Nancy Reagan on U.S. weather agencies: "Just say NOAA"------ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/10/88)
In article <12118@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <258@quintus.UUCP> by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): > To summarize: the SVID is good news for applications developers. > AT&T _could_ ADD enormous chunks to the SVID without warning > and that was Henry Spencer's original point. >A few years ago, people were bitching about the System V standard because it >didn't include networking. Now they're bitching because there's a mechanism >for adding such missing pieces?! > >A little less heat, please, and a little more light. Not to mention just a >bit more so-called "common" sense. Why not quote the part of my posting where I said that every UNIX programmer who seriously cares about portability should have his own copy of the SVID? I am not a UNIX vendor. If AT&T add VMS compatibility to System V Release 58 that's no skin off _my_ nose. I _like_ the SVID, I'm glad it exists, and I refer to it a _LOT_. My posting was a reply to ..... someone from AT&T who denied that the SVID had ever changed, and that poster thought he was refuting Henry Spencer's claim that the SVID was not as stable and multilaterally controlled a standard as POSIX will be. Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and let's have some common sense: POSIX will be better for _everybody_ (except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard. As for bitching about networking, I've read the relevant V.3 manuals several times, and, well, does anyone know of anything printed in English that explains V.3 networking?
hjespers@attcan.UUCP (Hans Jespersen) (08/10/88)
I have to back Henry up on this one. AT&T is the most kniving, mean, evil,
and nasty company on the face of the earth, no I take that back, the entire
universe. They are totally bent on making UNIX a completely unportable,
AT&T specific operating system. They have purposely written sneaky NULL
pointer stuff in there just to screw up other vendors machines. Machines
that at the time, hadn't even been built yet. Now that's sneaky. And then
they have the nerve to charge $795 for a copy of this useless piece of
junk for my Super Turbo 386i+. And I don't even get a free micro-fiche
reader with that. I'm talking highway robbery here. $795 for something that
took a mere 20 years and 3.2 zillion dollars to develop (and the trash
still can run my CPM programs). And then they go and publish this thing
called a SVID and tell everone that they got to comform to it. Not only
that, they go and modify the damn thing every time a significant advancement
is made in the computer industry. I understand they're about to modify
it again and add a whole new bunch of stuff about networking. Imagine that,
networking in an operating system description. If AT&T were smart, they
would have written ONE SVID back in 1969 and we'd all be running perfectly
compatible MULTICS OS's all written in B language.
On the other hand there are the wonderful guys at OSF like IBM and DEC.
These two companies are committed to open architectures and open systems.
They have been for years. I can take my IBM mainframe hard disk unit
home in my pickup truck, plug her in to my Super Turbo 386i+ via the
SCUZIOD interface, and away I go. 89.6 gillion ExaBytes online. Perfect
for those large DBase I files. Then I can call up my friend in California
(he has a VAX) and with a simple cvcp (CMS to VMS copy) I can download
my database in no time. Are we talking open systems here or what.
Come on AT&T wake up and smell the coffee. This Scott MacQuarrie guy
should shut up and go and post in a news group he KNOWS something about,
like bionet.zoology.futures.
### ##
### #
#
### ##### #
### #
# #
# ##
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Jespersen |
AT&T Canada Inc. | PLACE SILLY TEXT BASED
PHONE : (416)499-9400 | GRAPHIC DOODAD HERE.
UUCP : {uunet}!attcan!hjespers |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above ARE NOT those of my employer.
The opinions expressed above ARE those of Elvis (yes, the king is alive and
well and living in Kallamazoo Mich.).
ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (08/10/88)
In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and >let's have some common sense: POSIX will be better for _everybody_ >(except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled >by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard. I disagree. It is much easier to write portable software in SVID than it is to do it in POSIX. POSIX left too many features optional and implementation dependent. It's like the OSI vs TCP/IP "war": the only difference is that OSI was designed by a much larger committee (and you see what the final product looks like). Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) (08/11/88)
In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
:let's have some common sense: POSIX will be better for _everybody_
:(except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled
:by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as if I need to say that in this group :-) but
hasn't AT&T publicly committed its support to the POSIX effort? Why
are SVID and POSIX seen to be mutually exclusive? If you assume that,
because POSIX will be under the "control" of a group other than AT&T,
AT&T will suffer, I think you're mistaken. Seems to me that AT&T will
reap a benefit wherever UNIX is pushed as an open industry standard.
The real question is whether they can take advantage of it in order
to sell their own hardware and software.
As to the last phrase in the cited text above -- I would hardly call SNA
"a stopgap as a standard" (although it's not a document per se).
--
Tom Gillespie ( ...att!picuxa!tgr) | (attmail!tgillespie) (201) 952-1178
AT&T/EDS Product Integration Center 299 Jefferson Rd. Parsippany NJ 07054
"Don't take life so serious ... it ain't nohow permanent." -- Walt Kellyallbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/11/88)
As quoted from <268@quintus.UUCP> by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): +--------------- | In article <12118@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | >As quoted from <258@quintus.UUCP> by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): | > To summarize: the SVID is good news for applications developers. | > AT&T _could_ ADD enormous chunks to the SVID without warning | > and that was Henry Spencer's original point. | >A few years ago, people were bitching about the System V standard because it | >didn't include networking. Now they're bitching because there's a mechanism | >for adding such missing pieces?! | | My posting was a reply to ..... someone from AT&T who denied that the SVID | had ever changed, +--------------- Did we read the same messages? The "someone from AT&T" NEVER asserted that the SVID had not changed! He said that it had been *expanded* -- which is exactly what I'm talking about and what is *necessary* if Unix is not to die. +--------------- | and that poster thought he was refuting Henry Spencer's | claim that the SVID was not as stable and multilaterally controlled a | standard as POSIX will be. +--------------- Frankly, POSIX is liable to be *too* stable. How often have you used pure ANSI Standard Pascal? How about ANSI Fortran? It is notable that the *effective* standard for Fortran has always been set by a single company (IBM), and that Pascal (which has no such backing) effectively has no standards at all. +--------------- | As for bitching about networking, I've read the relevant V.3 manuals | several times, and, well, does anyone know of anything printed in English | that explains V.3 networking? +--------------- Before anyone answers that, let's make sure it's a real issue: is there anything printed in English which explains BSD networking? (I.e. if there is, the point is valid, but if not then why does it matter?) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/11/88)
In article <12145@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <268@quintus.UUCP> by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe): [deleted] >Did we read the same messages? The "someone from AT&T" NEVER asserted that >the SVID had not changed! He said that it had been *expanded* -- which is >exactly what I'm talking about and what is *necessary* if Unix is not to die. The original message has long gone, but the someone from AT&T denied that Henry Spencer's claim that the SVID had had two issues and that there would be more was true. The SVID has been expanded. It has _also_ had a number of minor features deleted. The original point of this wretched debate was precisely that *expansion* (content and timing unilaterally decided on by AT&T, no right of appeal) is what renders the SVID less attractive to firms that want to port and sell UNIX than to people who want to write applications. I honestly cannot see what there is to quarrel with in that statement. It's AT&T's SVID, they can do what they like with it. The SVID was not handed down on Sinai. Why react as if I had blasphemed against the Quran? >Frankly, POSIX is liable to be *too* stable. How often have you used pure >ANSI Standard Pascal? How about ANSI Fortran? It is notable that the >*effective* standard for Fortran has always been set by a single company >(IBM), and that Pascal (which has no such backing) effectively has no >standards at all. I have used pure ANSI Standard Pascal whenever I have had the chance. (And whenever I have found it necessary to use Pascal.) In comp.lang.fortran not too long ago, it was claimed that the de facto standard for Fortran was the VMS Fortran compiler (this is to some extent supported by Sun's bringing out a "VMS-like" compiler for SunOS 4.0). Not that that matters, as I wouldn't dream of using any non-standard features in Fortran. (Well, I might use lower case, or Ratfor, but I have tools to convert that to standard Fortran.) IBM's own "SAA" manual for Fortran warns you against using mainframe-specific features if you want to port code between IBM mainframes and IBM micros. When you have moved a Pascal or a Fortran program from TOPS-10 to VMS to UNIX to AEGIS you start to get the idea that maybe sticking to the standard just _might_ be a good idea. {Note that Fortran 8X met a _lot_ of opposition, for very practical reasons.} When POSIX is finished, I would be very happy to find a company which would implement _precisely_ what was mandated by POSIX, and would promise not to add any features at all until the next edition of POSIX, but would spend their time fixing mistakes, speeding the thing up, and making it use less memory. It would make a _wonderful_ platform for developing portable code. >| As for bitching about networking, I've read the relevant V.3 manuals >| several times, and, well, does anyone know of anything printed in English >| that explains V.3 networking? >Before anyone answers that, let's make sure it's a real issue: is there >anything printed in English which explains BSD networking? (I.e. if there >is, the point is valid, but if not then why does it matter?) What the **** has the existence of otherwise of a description of BSD networking got to do with my question about V.3? I am not saying BSD is better. I'm not saying BSD is good. I'm not saying BSD is bad. I'm not saying _ANYTHING_ about BSD networking. There is a whole pile of new stuff in the V.3 manuals about streams and TLI and I would like to find out how to use it, but the manuals basically assume you already understand it all and just need to be reminded. (I'm happy to accept the UNIX V7 document set as "English" for the purposes of my question.) I want to know about V.3 networking because we have some code using sockets that already works, and we would like to have it run under V.3. I don't expect the conversion to be trivial, and I hoped to learn more about V.3 streams &c than I ever knew about sockets (I mean, I've read all those papers that say how neat and utterly non-kludgy streams are). I pounced on the relevant manuals with cries of joy, all prepared to become a True Believer in the AT&T Way, but the relevant manuals would be nearly as clear if they were written in Reformed Egytian (:-).
jpd@etive.ed.ac.uk (Paul Dourish) (08/11/88)
In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >I am not a UNIX vendor. If AT&T add VMS compatibility to System V Release >58 that's no skin off _my_ nose. No need. In a recent edition of DEC/Computing (a random UK trade rag), Ken Olsen was quoted as saying that VMS is "... almost 100% POSIX-compliant" and "will be fully compliant soon". Nice to see Ken so hot on UNIX as an emerging standard. He may have taken a rather roundabout route to this position, though :-) -- Paul. -- Paul Dourish, JANET: jpd@uk.ac.ed.itspna Concurrent Supercomputer Project, ARPA: jpd%ed.itspna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Edinburgh University Computing Service UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!itspna!jpd "Ain't they got no barbers where you come from, boy?"
rye@sfmin.UUCP (R.Schwark) (08/11/88)
> In article <12118@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and > let's have some common sense: POSIX will be better for _everybody_ > (except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled > by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard. > That's not fair. AT&T has been supporting POSIX and will continue to support POSIX. A Public standard is good for all of us. Particularly in that it makes other vendors more comfortable in being in the UNIX System market. Remember, we're not just fighting for shares of the UNIX System market, we're trying to make the whole market *bigger*. Ry Schwark attunix!rye rye@attunix.att.com
gallen@apollo.COM (Gary Allen) (08/12/88)
In article <2998@homxc.UUCP> dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) writes: >and i believe that the founders of osf have different desires and >goals. while i believe that those members of osf whose systems >depend on a widely accessible "definition" of the unix operating >system truly felt locked out, i believe that at least two founding >members have goals other than what is stated. open systems are >still the last thing on both ibm's and dec's minds (here i am talking >about the higher ups...not the people who are working on open systems >within their respective companies). the majority of the systems they >sell are proprietary and none of the talk of open systems has changed >the way they market their main money makers. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every single member of OSF have a UNIX license, and doesn't every one of them sell UNIX in addition to other products? And isn't it a fact that the 2 companies that you single out are 2 of the major UNIX suppliers? Proprietary systems? Yeah, they all also sell OS's of their own creation, JUST AS PROPRIETARY AS YOURS, or don't you know what the word means? In case you don't, I'll quote from Webster (the second definition): 1. of, or relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor <~rights>; 2. used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right <a ~ process>; 3. privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization <a ~ clinic> Now which definition is it that makes UNIX non-proprietary? I'm sure we'd all like to know, since that'd mean we don't have to pay AT&T any license fees. And surely you must know that AT&T considers it to be proprietary, or perhaps you've never seen (hope I don't get sued for this): /* THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T */ /* The copyright notice above does not evidence any */ /* actual or intended publication of such source code. */ Perhaps you mean portable instead of proprietary? And as to openness, to whom exactly is the process of defining UNIX open? To Sun now. Of course, they were the "bad guys" a few years ago, not following AT&T's lead and all. Amazing how AT&T cozied up when Sun became what many consider to be the "driving force" behind UNIX. Oh yeah, Unisys is in their somewhere. Sure, wanna buy an bridge? Hey, I like UNIX just fine, buts lets not bullshit anyone anymore about what it is and is not. And by the way, all of these Bad Companies (apologies to John Paul Rodgers) have every right to sell other products in competition with your company's, or must I also define capitalism for you as well? Or perhaps some AT&T folk have the attitude that they're still guaranteed market, profits, and success? >i myself am most paranoid and imagine the worst possible scenarios. >perhaps someone out there can answer some questions about osf independence >from its founders. for example, to whom must a non-profit corporate >answer to? does it have stockholders? is it possbile for a large >corporation to buy up a non-profit organization? (here i am assuming >that the osf is a non-profit corporation). if the osf were to gain >a large share of the unix market, is there any possible way for ibm >to yank its porting base away and make it proprietary (or at least >charge outrageous prices for it)? Hey, some good questions about the non-profit status (it is non-profit according to their marketing blurb that was passed out here)! As for OSF gaining a large share of the market, OSF will sell code to vendors (including the founders), not to individual users. If OSF sells whatever-ix to IBM and IBM corners a large share of the market, it will be IBM that has the market, not OSF. That is, unless you believe that Microsoft has cornered the PC market and AT&T has cornered the mini market. As for IBM yanking OSF-ix away from OSF (if it were at all possible), don't you think that DEC (their biggest competitor) might have something to say about that? Gary Allen Apollo Computer Chelmsford, MA {decvax,yale,umix,mit-eddie}!apollo!gallen Oh yeah, the opinions herein expressed aren't worth 2 bits and aren't condoned by anyone that really counts.
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (08/12/88)
In article <1988Aug8.174232.112@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2843@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: > >Henry, you're the one who seems to be whomping the straw man now. If > >MacQuarrie ever "claim[ed] that [AT&T is] bending over backwards to make > >[System V] portable" I sure missed it... > > Lest we forget, his actual words were: > > ... show me another vendor which has worked as hard to provide > a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers > to feely decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... And MacQuarrie makes a damned good point there too. You gripe and bellyache about the UNIX operating system. OK, you don't like it, come up with another operating system, NOT a UNIX system workalike, that will port to a gazillion other machines even half as well. The UNIX operating system (and its structure and philosophy, which non-AT&T UNIX system workalikes, such as what the OSF wants to build, now use without one word of acknowledgment to AT&T or objection by AT&T--"my how greedy of us") came to exist because of AT&T. Now... to your claim. How you could legitimately turn MacQuarrie's quote above into a "claim that [AT&T is] bending over backwards to..." (do things which, by the way, AT&T has every right in the world to do or not do) etc. is beyond MY ken. MacQuarrie is talking about the big picture, about what AT&T has created and nurtured into being. You're narrowly focused on current problems with System V, and viewed his statement through those glasses, ironic considering that you talk later on about "taking the long view." -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | Bell Labs Area 61 (R.I.P., TTY)| AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T. | Skokie, Illinois | |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----|
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (08/12/88)
In article <1140@nusdhub.UUCP> rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes: .... >What this means is that you will be seeing UNIX/370 from IBM, >and DEC/NIX from Digital equip. corp. (Probably not exact >product names, I just made them up) and the like form every >member of OSF. It spesifically *DOES NOT* mean that each >member will be using the same source code at all, nor does it >mean that the individual members are in any way required to >adhere to this aledged standard.... Of course. But so what? Amidst all of the hoopla and gyrations, whether of the ATT/Sun ilk, or of guessing what OSF will do, let us remember: 1) No system vendor that stays in existence ignores upward compatibility from what they've got. That doesn't necesarily mean they stay upward compatible forever, but they sure think about transition plans, compatibility libraries, etc. They don't surprise people with flash cuts. They probably have commitments to customers for features, fixes, etc that may well have been in 1987, and may or may not yet be delivered; if so, they probably don't tell their customers to forget those commitments while the world stabilizes. 2) When somebody ports the first UNIX on a new product, they take the latest they get from somebody else, add the pieces from other variants, and off they go. 3) When another release comes to them, they do NOT instantly junk everything they've got, but do a lot of diffing and merging [in one direction or another], and it may well take multiple releases to get there. 4) While all of this settles out, vendors must continue to build, ship, and support their systems, or their customers will (properly) zing them. 5) As a result, I doubt that any existing vendor will magically switch over either SVR4 or to OSFix the instant they appear, and THERE IS NO RATION REASON to expect them to do so. It is reasonable that these rounds of convergence cause people to add in standard ways of doing some of the newer things and support them, and maybe get common code for some pieces of things, and maybe start new hardware ports from the code, and maybe agree on a larger set of commonality. But no one will instantly switch. 6) While all this is going on, the 3rd-party software vendors will (properly) continue to write to the least-common denominator until it becomes clear what's going on. Of course, this means, in effect, that many programs will, for several more years, count on litle more than the (10-year old) 7th Edition! :-) -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/13/88)
In article <644@picuxa.UUCP> tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) writes: >In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >:POSIX will be better for _everybody_ >:(except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled >:by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard. > >Correct me if I'm wrong (as if I need to say that in this group :-) but >hasn't AT&T publicly committed its support to the POSIX effort? The SVID itself says "The SVID is consistent with the trial-use standard (Novemeber 1985), with several minor exceptions. Full conformance to the IEEE standard will be strongly considered after its formal approval." -- The minor exceptions, by the way, are things like 0 -vs- -1 for non-blocking reads, whether group is inherited from directory or process, all those little things that always made BSD<->ATT porting such fun. When the SVID becomes an extension of POSIX, it will then be seen to have been a stopgap >as a standard<. It will continue to be extremely useful as a guide to System V features which go beyond POSIX. >Why are SVID and POSIX seen to be mutually exclusive? Who said they were? I didn't! Currently, SVID is more "real" than POSIX, in the not-too-distant future POSIX will be more "standard" than SVID. The point is that P1003 is going to supplant SVID _as a standard_. >If you assume that, >because POSIX will be under the "control" of a group other than AT&T, >AT&T will suffer, I think you're mistaken. I didn't say that either. What I said was that POSIX will be _better_ for everybody (except AT&T). It will be good for AT&T, but it won't be better for them than the SVID has been. >As to the last phrase in the cited text above -- I would hardly call SNA >"a stopgap as a standard" (although it's not a document per se). I would hardly call MVS a stopgap as a standard, although it is not a document per se. I would hardly call the Statue of Liberty a stopgap as a standard, although it is not a document per se. It's a funny thing, but I'm using Ethernet, not SNA, and you can get Ethernet cards and drivers for V.3. And the V.3 "TLI" library (which I cannot claim to understand) is described in terms of the ISORM, not in SNA terms. A parallel from the IBM world which is more appropriate: for quite a while the IBM "F-level" PL/I compiler was the de facto standard for PL/I. It hasn't been for some years, and PL/I compiler writers can appeal to a standard (albeit not the world's most comprehensible document...) instead of having to imitate whatever one manufacturer chooses to do. It will be a considerable surprise if the second version of the POSIX standard won't borrow a lot from AT&T's then current version of the SVID. The great thing is that standards don't change fast, so we'll have had a chance to see how AT&T's ideas work out in practice before requiring that everyone support them. To give you an example of why this is good: termcap became a de facto standard. But AT&T decided to produce terminfo instead. For some years I thought of this as NIH syndrome, but it finally penetrated my skull that terminfo is technically better.
der@sfmag.UUCP (D.Rorke) (08/13/88)
Gary Allen responds to a poster who voiced concern over the motives of some of the members of OSF: > You can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every single member of OSF > have a UNIX license, and doesn't every one of them sell UNIX in addition > to other products? And isn't it a fact that the 2 companies that you > single out are 2 of the major UNIX suppliers? This misses the point. Yes they all have (as far as I know) some sort of UNIX-like product in their product lines. I suspect that some of them carry it just in case their customers ask for it. The point is, open systems are a major threat to some of the members of OSF. Consider the following scenario: Open systems really catch on in the industry, including useful industry standard interfaces. Various vendors build and market hardware that supports the industry standard operating system environment. Hardware is priced competitively due to the open market (customers can shop around for hardware based on price-performance). Now the biggie - applications developers turn out serious, industrial strength DP applications that run in the standard environment (like payroll and accounting and inventory control applications). Now a data processing manager is faced with a choice (in some cases for the first time). He can continue to pay 10 zillion dollars a month to lease the hardware and software to maintain the environment he has been running since the dawn of time, or he can move to an open environment, end his marriage to a single hardware vendor, and take advantage of new hardware technology at an enormous savings. Sure it's painful and expensive to move to the new environment but it only has to be done once and the long term savings more than justify the cost. This is a scenario that IBM in particular has to be concerned about. They have profited tremendously in the past from the fact that many of their customers have been locked into an IBM environment. This is why it is a little difficult for some of us to believe that intelligent, responsible IBM executives sincerely want open systems to flourish. > > Proprietary systems? Yeah, they all also sell OS's of their own creation, > JUST AS PROPRIETARY AS YOURS, or don't you know what the word means? > In case you don't, I'll quote from Webster (the second definition): > > 1. of, or relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor <~rights>; > 2. used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal > right <a ~ process>; > 3. privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization > <a ~ clinic> > > Now which definition is it that makes UNIX non-proprietary? I'm sure > we'd all like to know, since that'd mean we don't have to pay AT&T > any license fees. > > And surely you must know that AT&T considers it to be proprietary, or > perhaps you've never seen (hope I don't get sued for this): > > /* THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T */ > /* The copyright notice above does not evidence any */ > /* actual or intended publication of such source code. */ > > Perhaps you mean portable instead of proprietary? Yes, System V source code is proprietary in that those wishing to sell products based on it must pay a licensing fee. Generally when people talk about proprietary systems however they are talking about systems that are offered primarily by a single vendor and are either not licensed to 3rd parties or are so non-portable that they will never run on any other vendor's hardware. In this sense UNIX is a non-proprietary system. > > And by the way, all of these Bad Companies (apologies to John > Paul Rodgers) have every right to sell other products in competition > with your company's, or must I also define capitalism for you as > well? Or perhaps some AT&T folk have the attitude that they're > still guaranteed market, profits, and success? Of course they have a right to compete. In general competition is good for the marketplace. Unfortunately the untimely appearance of OSF is likely to be bad for the marketplace and the industry. It is bad for the customers in the sense that it adds further confusion to a market that was beginning to converge on standards (i.e. the emergence of the POSIX standard and the convergence of Xenix, BSD and System V). OSF will tend to fragment the UNIX market and slow its growth which is bad not only for customers but for other vendors with a real stake in the UNIX market (including some of the members of OSF). I really believe that those members of OSF that have a real stake in the success of open systems (like Apollo) would have been better off if they had stuck with existing/emerging standards and OSF had never been formed. > > Gary Allen > Apollo Computer > Chelmsford, MA > {decvax,yale,umix,mit-eddie}!apollo!gallen > > Oh yeah, the opinions herein expressed aren't worth 2 bits and aren't > condoned by anyone that really counts. You said it, not me. Dave Rorke AT&T Bell Laboratories Summit, NJ attunix!der
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (08/13/88)
[The following was by Scott MacQuarrie, quoted by Henry Spencer] >> ... show me another vendor which has worked as hard to provide >> a truly hardware independent operating system to allow customers >> to [freely] decide what hardware they need to solve their problems... In article <2857@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >And MacQuarrie makes a damned good point there too. You gripe and bellyache >about the UNIX operating system. OK, you don't like it, come up with another >operating system, NOT a UNIX system workalike, that will port to a gazillion >other machines even half as well. The UNIX operating system (and its structure >and philosophy, which non-AT&T UNIX system workalikes, such as what the OSF >wants to build, now use without one word of acknowledgment to AT&T or objection >by AT&T--"my how greedy of us") came to exist because of AT&T. The problem with this argument is that Unix came into existence because of the One Bell System, the same One Bell System that no longer exists. The AT&T that now controls (by licensing) Unix is *not* the same corporation that produced it! It merely has the same name. Henry apparently believes---and I agree with him---that the new AT&T cannot be assumed to be exactly like the old, and that any actions taken by the old AT&T are not to be construed to the new AT&T's credit, nor vice versa. In particular, the old `portable' Unix (i.e., V7) was produced by Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Doug McIlroy, John Mashey, Joe Ossanna, et alia; the new `portable?' Unix (i.e., SysV) is by hundreds of programmers of varying ability, and it shows it in a noticeable *lack* of portability in some of the new programs. Rick Adams posted a wonderful example, where someone wrote strcmp(ptr, "f(") == 0 instead of ptr == NULL It works on the 3B.... >MacQuarrie is talking about the big picture, about what AT&T has >created and nurtured into being. [Henry Spencer has] narrowly focused >on current problems with System V, and viewed his statement through >those glasses, ironic considering that you talk later on about "taking >the long view." Since the AT&T that `created and nurtured' Unix is really research!everyone, and the AT&T that produced System V Release 3 is not, this seems like a reasonable position to me. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (08/14/88)
> As for bitching about networking, I've read the relevant V.3 manuals > several times, and, well, does anyone know of anything printed in English > that explains V.3 networking? See AT&T's "UNIX Syststem V Networking Programmer Manual" or somesuch, published by Addison-Wesley.
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/15/88)
As quoted from <882@sfmin.UUCP> by rye@sfmin.UUCP (R.Schwark): +--------------- | > In article <12118@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) SUPPOSEDLY writes: | > Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and | | That's not fair. AT&T has been supporting POSIX and will continue to +--------------- Let's get the quoting right, too, while we're at it. I asked for light instead of heat, and someone else responded with that bit of nonsense... nonsense because I was aware that AT&T supports POSIX. Talk about quoting out of context! ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/17/88)
In article <2857@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >... The UNIX operating system (and its structure >and philosophy... came to exist because of AT&T. No, actually, they came to exist because of the Bell System. Any resemblance to today's AT&T is accidental. :-) >... How you could legitimately turn MacQuarrie's quote above >into a "claim that [AT&T is] bending over backwards to..." Actually, fairly easily. He claimed that they had worked extremely hard to provide a hardware-independent operating system. I pointed out that they had worked hard to provide a system which ran on all the hardware *they* were interested in using or selling. There is a difference! Even there, one should note that the original work to make the system portable was largely done by the Bell Labs research people; AT&T has since basically done diddly-squat about improving portability, since the remaining portability problems didn't affect *them*. (They've done a little bit of work on portability, but they've also introduced some new and gratuitous portability problems of their own, so the overall balance is roughly zero.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) (08/19/88)
In article <1988Aug16.214307.20597@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Even there, one should note that the original work to make the system > portable was largely done by the Bell Labs research people; AT&T has > since basically done diddly-squat about improving portability, since the > remaining portability problems didn't affect *them*. (They've done a > little bit of work on portability, but they've also introduced some new > and gratuitous portability problems of their own, so the overall balance > is roughly zero.) i think this is too general a statement and needs clarification. the biggest step in making the system portable was the implementation of the system in 'c'. whether you wish to view this as 'the original work to make the system portable' is a subjective opinion. i believe that the System V developers have done a great job in making the kernel more portable. of course, my opinion doesn't really count and neither does anyone who doesn't do kernel ports. any real live kernel port people out there who have an opinion? (we know that the time required to do ports is getting shorter and shorter but that may be due to increased experience). i would also like to add that i believe henry is again confusing kernel portability with application portability. i would like to know of any specific kernel portability problems that the System V developers have 'gratuitously' added. danny chen att!homxc!dwc
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/20/88)
In article <2998@homxc.UUCP> dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) writes: >> I could be wrong, but my impression is that one of the Consent Decrees >> required licensing on reasonable terms to all comers. I know of at >> least one occasion when lawsuits were being considered over possible >> refusal to release technology (although of course that may just mean >> that the potential plaintiffs were going to try it on speculation). >> >i also believe that we were under no obligation to provide our >developed technologies... I now have slightly more specific information on this. The Consent Decree of 1956 specifically required licensing of patents -- no ifs, buts, or maybes. However, it did not touch on non-patented stuff to any extent, and in particular, except for (presumably) the setuid patent, it did not mandate release of Unix. It would appear that the lawsuits I heard about were indeed on speculation; since they never materialized there's no way to be sure how they would have turned out. >> ... when are they going to fix the NULL-pointer bugs? >> >is this really a portability issue or is this an issue of supporting >a base of applications out there that dereferences NULLs? are you >confusing application portability with operating system portability? I am speaking of portability of Unix, i.e. the kernel AND THE UTILITIES. As at least one would-be lookalike builder has discovered, the hard part about duplicating Unix is the utilities, not the kernel. And at least the older System V utilities deferenced a lot of NULL pointers. >> Many people see this as a major conflict of interest for AT&T; how can >> it remain the paragon of evenhandedness that you claim it is, when it has >> climbed into bed with one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others? >> >there is only a conflict of interest if one believes that a particular >hardware architecture can really affect a specification for a user/programmer >interface... Well, actually, it can in various ways. To take a small example, consider the vile botch in System V interprocess communication of using -1 (rather than 0) cast to a pointer as an error return code. That is *not* portable, but it happens to work on certain architectures. If you want another example, see the above: AT&T operated for quite a while with "it is safe to dereference a NULL pointer" as an implicit part of their programming interface. There is also an apparent conflict of interest over more than just the final shape of the specs. Little things like "when do others get to see the specs?" and "do others have any say in the specs?" are not trivial issues either. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/20/88)
In article <2843@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >Anyone with reason would conclude that it's in AT&T's financial interest >(GAA, there's that DIRTY word again :-) to have quality code, and that poor >quality code can only hurt AT&T. If you're going to hint at a conspiracy, >you're going to have to come up with other evidence than code bugs. I'm not talking conspiracy, actually, just a combination of incompetence and utter disregard for problems caused to anyone outside AT&T. For example, people have been having trouble with NULL pointers in System V for years, but it's only now -- when partnership with Sun makes AT&T care about the issue for its *own* purposes -- that something is being done about it. Anyone with reason would indeed conclude that it's in AT&T's financial best interests to have quality code. This is a sad comment on the degree of rationality found in AT&T management. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bzs@encore.UUCP (Barry Shein) (08/21/88)
Henry Spencer writes... >Well, actually, it can in various ways. To take a small example, consider >the vile botch in System V interprocess communication of using -1 (rather >than 0) cast to a pointer as an error return code. That is *not* portable, >but it happens to work on certain architectures. Far be it for me to defend anyone, but this stems from a day-one bug that predates all of this (at least V6, probably earlier.) Consider that sbrk() returns -1 (specifically, (char *)-1) as an error code in all Unix's I know of (BSD, SYSV.) Real problem of conventions, should syscalls always try to return -1? Unfortunate convention! -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) (08/23/88)
In article <1988Aug19.204836.23395@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > I am speaking of portability of Unix, i.e. the kernel AND THE UTILITIES. > As at least one would-be lookalike builder has discovered, the hard part > about duplicating Unix is the utilities, not the kernel. And at least > the older System V utilities deferenced a lot of NULL pointers. > that may have been what you were speaking of, but i got the distinct impression that the "publicized" fear of the founders of osf was in the area of KERNEL PORTABILITY. anyway, judging from your last sentence, it seems that you are not sure whether newer system v utilities dereference NULL pointers or not. if that is the case, how can you make a statement that at&t has done diddly to improve portability over the past several years? if it is true, as you claim, that porting unix utilities is difficult, then making them portable would be at least as difficult. and if you are not sure whether at&t has done this difficult task, then how can you so callously be making such harsh judgments? sorry to pull the court room lawyer routine on you, but you have been making comments that i believe to be more founded in religion than actual fact. you may resent the fact that the unix system does in fact belong to at&t. it is extremely expedient and self serving (not to mention a form of denial) to assert that the only entity that can claim ownership rights to the unix system is a bell system that is no longer existent. but it is childish to take your frustrations out on a hard working development organization that in reality has done much good work over the past several years. by the way, i did get an e-mail response about a kernel portability problem that has been introduced in the past several years and will be looking into whether it is still in the porting base (and i'm not even in the development organization...how's that for commitment?). danny chen att!homxc!dwc
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (08/24/88)
In article <882@sfmin.UUCP> rye@sfmin.UUCP (R.Schwark) writes: |AT&T has been supporting POSIX and will continue to |support POSIX. A Public standard is good for all of us. Particularly |in that it makes other vendors more comfortable in being in the |UNIX System market. Remember, we're not just fighting for shares |of the UNIX System market, we're trying to make the whole market |*bigger*. This is so, and was stressed by the AT&T people I talked to today, as well as a good many other vendors who are trying to push their products in the POSIX direction. In addition, AT&T is obviously following emerging standards in the workstation field (ie X windows support in addition to Open Look)... even though their symbol is the death star, they're not all bad guys. And now I have my very own AT&T pen complete with its own death star emblem. It's been a good day ;-). jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/25/88)
In article <24524@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: | In addition, AT&T is obviously | following emerging standards in the workstation field (ie X windows | support in addition to Open Look)... Lest this cause confusion, X-windows and Open Look do not compete in any way. X-windows is a transport layer (more or less) which controls how the data is to be transferred to the display, while Open Look is a user interface which standardizes the way the user interacts with the program. X-windows competes with NeWS, and Open Look competes with the Max Finder. Yes there are lots of other players in both areas. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) (08/26/88)
In article <11968@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <24524@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: > >X-windows competes with NeWS, and Open Look competes with the >Finder. Yes there are lots of other players in both areas. >-- I understand that HPs X based New Wave will be competing with Open Look but I have also heard that there is a chance that New Wave will have an "Open Look" mode (UNIX World article, I think). Does anybody know? -Bo -- >>> Bo Thide', Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 90 Uppsala, Sweden <<< Phone (+46) 18-300020. Telex: 76036 (IRFUPP S). UUCP: ..enea!kuling!irfu!bt
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/27/88)
In article <3165@homxc.UUCP> dwc@homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) writes: >... anyway, judging from your last sentence, >it seems that you are not sure whether newer system v utilities dereference >NULL pointers or not. if that is the case, how can you make a statement >that at&t has done diddly to improve portability over the past several >years? I have heard rumors that AT&T is cleaning up its act on this issue; in any case, they have to now that they're in bed with Sun. The statement stands: over the past several years, AT&T has ignored all portability bugs except those that cause trouble on machines that AT&T sells or uses. The major, possibly the only, reason that AT&T is now paying attention to the matter of NULL pointers is that Sun sells machines that can't do *NULL. >if it is true, as you claim, that porting unix utilities is difficult, >then making them portable would be at least as difficult. and if you are not >sure whether at&t has done this difficult task, then how can you so callously >be making such harsh judgments? I didn't say porting the utilities was difficult; I said it was more difficult than it had to be, because of AT&T's carelessness. Getting the *NULL bugs out of a large program can be a hassle, but it's not a major nightmare. Better yet, of course, is not to put them *in* in the first place! It's not that big a deal to fix things; Sun did it, back when Sun was still a pretty small company. If you want a really ridiculous example of AT&T's unconcern for real portability, consider the SVVS. But, you say, surely this is evidence of AT&T's concern for portability: a way of testing a new implementation for conformance with AT&T's standard. Except that a little bird tells me that *THE SVVS ITSELF* has NULL-pointer problems!!! >you may resent the fact that the unix system does in fact belong to at&t. I can't say that I'm delighted that it belongs to a company that has done such a lousy job of getting its act together, but "resent" isn't quite the right word. "Regret" is more like it. >it is extremely expedient and self serving (not to mention a form of denial) >to assert that the only entity that can claim ownership rights to the >unix system is a bell system that is no longer existent... Ah, but I didn't say that. What I said was that the credit for creating Unix went to the no-longer-existing Bell System, and that AT&T's right to preen itself as the creator of Unix was doubtful. It inarguably is the owner. > it is childish >to take your frustrations out on a hard working development organization... "Do not confuse effort with results." "Work smart, not hard." >that in reality has done much good work over the past several years. Change that to "some good work" and I won't dispute it. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu