greg@vertical.oz (Greg Bond) (05/24/88)
IBM and DEC working for the good of the Unix market?
Right up there with "We're from the Govenment, and we're here to help."
Want to buy a bridge?
--
Gregory Bond, Vertical Software, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: greg@vertical.oz.au (or greg%vertical.oz.au@uunet.uu.net)
UUCP: {uunet,pyramid,mnetor,ukc,ucb-vision}!munnari!vertical.oz!greg
ACSnet: greg@vertical.ozsullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (05/27/88)
Does anybody know what Apple's position in this SysV vs. OSF thang is?
A/UX may be a big boy soon with the popularity of Mac II, so I am curious.
I'd like to know Next's position too, but that would be too much to
ask for. Also, Next is supposed to have their big debut in the not
too distant future. When is the big day?
--
Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
sullivan@vsi.com
HE V MTL <- Can anybody guess the significance of that?wayne@ames.arc.nasa.gov (06/03/88)
All this discussion about OSF and its "members" (one of which is of
course IBM) reminds me of one of my favorite Pogo Possum lines. It
seems Pogo had gone on an outing with a bunch of his friends --
Howland Owl, Tammany Tiger, and several I don't remember -- and they
had gotten lost and were discussing their fate, even the possibility
of all of them starving. Whereupon Pogo observed:
When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last.
Of course, we know that this doesn't really apply to the OSF, since
all of its members are equal ... (Huh? Did someone just mention
"Aminal Farm"?)
Wayne Hathaway ultra!wayne@Ames.ARPA
Ultra Network Technologies
2140 Bering drive with a domain server:
San Jose, CA 95131 wayne@Ultra.COM
408-922-0100rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (06/09/88)
From: Bob Devine <devine@cookie.dec.com>
I hope that Sun and AT&T finally decide to join OSF like they
have joined X/Open. Since the announcment, National Bureau of
Standards has indicated that they wish to join OSF.
You won't find me on that committee. I suppose they just want to
keep their fingers in all the pies. Gee, guys where'd you get the money?
(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa>
National Bureau of Standards
Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688
The opinions expressed are solely my own
and do not reflect NBS policy or agreement
My name is in /usr/dict/words. Is yours?mb@ttidca.TTI.COM (Michael Bloom) (06/09/88)
While all of this talk on OSF, AIX, etc... has been very interesting, it has become harder and harder to find technical articles in this newsgroup (perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen one article describing (for example) technical details on the current AIX - which I understand is *not* the Interactive port but rather a repackaging, commissioned by IBM roughly 4 years ago, of the Locus Distributed Operating System). Could we get back to technical topics, and create a new newsgroup to handle these non technical discussions? Maybe comp.unix.politics, or soc.politics.unix? (If the latter, it'll be the only soc.* group I read). Michael
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/09/88)
In article <5150@nsc.nsc.com> glennw@nsc.UUCP (Glenn Weinberg) writes: >>Certainly this completely misdescribes the AT&T UNIX System V Release >>2 and 3 source licenses and sublicensing agreements that BRL signed. >You mean that BRL can ship a version of V.3 that doesn't pass SVVS? No, I meant that the article I was responding to misdescribed the AT&T UNIX System V Release 2 and 3 source licenses and sublicensing agreements. I explained this before, but for example there is no "renewal" necessary. BRL is not actually a VAR; our sublicensing is for our internal needs. I checked carefully to make sure that we did not have to be fully SVID- compliant within our "site" (actually all of Aberdeen Proving Ground). In fact the SVID requirement goes into effect after the end of this month; systems shipped before that date are exempt, as are those shipped under SVR2 licensing. As a software USER, I rather like the requirement. I'm tired of getting systems advertised as "UNIX" that have some warped notion of what that means.
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (06/09/88)
>Could we get back to technical topics, and create a new newsgroup to >handle these non technical discussions? Maybe comp.unix.politics, or >soc.politics.unix? (If the latter, it'll be the only soc.* group I >read). > >Michael I disagree, I think the topic is entirely appropriate for this group. First, it does rely on a lot of technical expertise to make intelligent analysis (not that all of it is "intelligent", but neither is the technical discussion, such is the nature of an Open Forum.) Also the kind of industry experience that comes with technical expertise. Second, and more importantly, unix-wizards has exactly the right audience to participate in such a discussion. Sorry, you can't be interested in everything that becomes topical on this list, but I don't think trying to stifle it because it's not "technical" enough for your tastes is a good decision either. It will run its own course, like everything else. Meta-discussions about what is or isn't appropriate tend to be a waste anyhow, particularly if it's not an obvious, black and white complaint (like, if it didn't have anything to do with the technical future of Unix.) Some of the more speculative traffic is invited over to INFO-FUTURES (comp.society.futures), but most of this is just trying to bang out what's happening right now. -Barry Shein, Boston University