wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) (05/18/88)
This is a typed-in copy of a press release I got this afternoon. I am not responsible for typing errors, but I think I was fairly careful. Bill Sommerfeld wesommer@athena.mit.edu FOUNDATION CONTACT: Deborah Siegel Cohn & Wolfe (212) 951-8300 ... Apollo, Groupe Bull, Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Nixdorf, Siemens ... NEW FOUNDATION TO ADVANCE SOFTWARE STANDARDS, DEVELOP AND PROVIDE OPEN SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT NEW YORK, N.Y., May 17, 1988---Seven leading computer companies today announced an international foundation to develop and provide a completely open software environment to make it easier for customers to use computers and software from many vendors. The Open Software Foundation (OSF) will develop a software environment, including application interfaces, advanced system extensions, and a new operating system, using X/Open(tm) and POSIX* specifications as the starting point. POSIX is an operating system standard, closely related to the UNIX(tm) system, that specifies how software should be written to run on computers from different vendors. Initial funding for OSF is being provided by the following sponsors: Apollo Computer Inc., Groupe Bull, Digital Equipment Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, International Business Machines Corporation, Nixdorf Computer AG, and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. OSF membership is available to computer hardware and software suppliers, educational institutions, and government agencies around the world. The foundation has a management organization, staff, and a funding comittment in excess of $90 million to begin immediate operations. Its initial development will be based on technologies offered by the members and its own research, to be carried out worldwide. "The creation of a standard software enviornment is one of the most important issues facing the computer industry today," said John L. Doyle, chairman of the foundation board of directors. "Establishing this international foundation fulfills the critical need for an open, rational, and equitable process to help establish the standards our customers demand and to protect their long-term software investment." Foundation Principles: OSF is incorporated as a non-profit, industry-supported research and development organization. It will define specifications, develop a leadership operating system, and promote an open, portable applications environment. Principles of the foundation include: * Offerings based on relevant industry standards; * Open process to actively solicit inputs and technology; * Timely, vendor-neutral decision process; * Early and equal access to specifications and continuing development; * Hardware independant applications; * Reasonable, stable licensing terms; * Technical innovation through university/research participation. To support its portable application environment, the foundation will provide software that makes it easier for users to mix and match computers and appllications from different suppliers by addressing the following needs: * Portability---the ability to use application software on computers from multiple vendors. * Interoperability---the ability to have computers from different vendors work together; * Scalability---the ability to use the same software environment on many classes of computers, from personal computers to supercomputers. To achieve maximum acceptance for the new software environment, the foundation will provide all members early and equal access to the development process. The foundation will follow a direction consistent with the international X/Open Common Application Environment, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards Application Portability Profile, and equivalent European and international standards. Where standards do not exist, the foundation will work with standards groups to help define them. Membership Foundation members will contribute ideas on both technical and policy matters. They will be informed of foundation activities on a regular basis and periodically polled on specific issues. Membership is open to anyone. Research Institute A research institute is being created to fund research for the advancement of applications portability, interoperability standards, and other advanced technologies for future foundation use. An academic advisory panel will provide guidance and input to the institute. The Institute's research will be conducted worldwide. Software environment guidelines The foundation's open software environment will allow vendors to add value through compatible extensions. To encourage its widespread use, it will run on a wide range of single- and multi-processor computers. THe foundation's software environment includes a set of application programming interfaces to make it easier to write applications for a variety of systems. The initial set of interfaces will support POSIX and X/Open specifications, and will be extended to include areas such as distributed computing, graphics, and user interfaces. The foundation will base its development efforts on its own research as well as on technologies which will be selected and licensed from member offerings. Technologies being considered by the foundation include: * Apollo's Network Computing System(tm) (NCS) * Bull's UNIX system-based multiprocessor architecture; * Digital's user interface tool kit and style guides for the X Window System(tm) * Hewlett-Packard's National Language Support (NLS); * Nixdorf's relational database technology; * Siemens' OSI protocol support. To provide a clear and easy migration path for application developers and end users, the foundation's system will include features to support current System V- and Berkeley-based UNIX applications. The operating system will use core technology from a future version of IBM's AIX(tm) as a development base. Specifications supported by the foundation will be publicly available, and a set of verification tests for all appropriate facilities will be identified or created. The foundation will license its open system software internationally. -------- X/Open is a trademark of X/Open CO. Ltd. * Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1003. UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T in the U.S. and other companies. Network Computing System is a trademark of Apollo Computer, Inc. X Window System is a trademark of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. AIX is a trademark of International Business Machines Corporation.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/18/88)
Curious that there is no mention of NeWS, IP/TCP, or NFS. Did Sun not join
because they didn't want to or because they weren't asked?
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.netreggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/18/88)
In article <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: >... Apollo, Groupe Bull, Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, >Nixdorf, Siemens ... This group is a very predictable lot ! Most of them never wanted to offer UNIX in the first place. They were forced into it by customer demand. > NEW FOUNDATION TO ADVANCE SOFTWARE STANDARDS, ^^^^^^^ > DEVELOP AND PROVIDE OPEN SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT More like they want to reimplement the wheel and call it something else because they don't want to follow AT&T and Sun's lead. >NEW YORK, N.Y., May 17, 1988---Seven leading computer companies today >announced an international foundation to develop and provide a >completely open software environment to make it easier for customers >to use computers and software from many vendors. Huh? How does creating an alternative standard help do that? Look at some of the areas of "standardization", like graphics standards, pick one. AT&T and Sun are taking a step that should have been taken years ago. It is exactly what the marketplace needs. And who better to do it than those who drive the development of the two main strains? I don't think we want this done by a committee. On the other hand one can see the Hamilton Group's problem with this. They do not want to have to play catch up all the time. But in reality, isn't that what they are doing anyway? None of those companies has the ability to effect changes to System V or SunOS (BSD) at the current time. Why should Sun and AT&T allow them to in the future? There are too many standardization groups out there anyway. Sun and AT&T are *doing* something about the problem right now. Look at how long the ANSI C effort is taking and that is just one group. All of the UNIX-related standardization groups will have to get together sometime and converge on a single standard. BTW: Some of the latest headlines in the trade rags indicate that end users are not happy about this group spliting off and developing yet another OS. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
randy@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Randy Orrison) (05/19/88)
What a waste. Could you imagine what those resources could do applied to the goals of the Free Software Foundation? Just what we need, another standard. I have just one question: Why? -randy Note: These views are, of course, my own, though if anyone wants to use them, by all means go right ahead.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/19/88)
The Open Software Foundation has $90Million in funding, and are going to be hiring "hundreds" of people. I don't care about WHY they're doing it. Reading between the lines, I gather they're going to rewrite EVERYTHING so that it contains no ATT licensed code. If they pull it off, many people will be very happy. I only wish they had given the money to GNU (I know some people talked to some other people) or UCB. Regardless of what happens, it's going to be an exciting time in the ole' Unix world. -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
karish@denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (05/19/88)
In the early '70s, I worked in a small machine shop. It was a job
shop, specializing in abrasive machining: grinding, lapping, and honing
metals and ceramics to close tolerances. Most of the customers were
other machine shops that subcontracted work to us; they'd send in
semi-finished parts, and we'd grind a particular dimension to size and
ship the parts back.
In early 1972, the owners of the shop decided to expand their business
by opening, as a separate operation, a conventional machine shop. The
abrasive machining shop immediately began to lose business. Shops that
had previously been customers stopped sending in jobs, because they
were afraid that if my employer found out what jobs they were doing, he
would try to bid on the whole job, instead of just the abrasive
machining part. The conventional machine shop was closed after about
six months.
AT&T and Sun are now in a position where their competitors can't afford
to cooperate with them. They're on record with the policy that there
will be no distribution of source to other vendors until the whole
operating system (System 5.5 or System 6 or whatever they call it) is
finished and official. This means that Sun and AT&T will have many
months to polish the implementations for their own machines before any
of their competitors see a single line of new code.
The stakes in the Unix game are pretty high now. The companies that
are forming the OSF are doing so because they can't allow a competitor
to dictate the rules of the game, and give itself a special advantage,
when there are multi-billion-dollar contracts at stake.
I'm not worried that we'll see a new Balkanization of the Unix
community. POSIX and the FIPS are explicit enough to ensure that
standardization of Unix implementations will continue. Remember, too,
that IBM and DEC now have large staffs of engineers who are Unix
partisans, who share the concerns of the Unix community at large.
We may soon see some serious competition between Unix vendors on the
basis of the quality of their implementations, rather than of who has
more features. I'm looking forward to it.
(I speak only for myself.)
Chuck Karish ARPA: karish@denali.stanford.edu
BITNET: karish%denali@forsythe.stanford.edu
UUCP: {decvax,hplabs!hpda}!mindcrf!karish
USPS: 1825 California St. #5 Mountain View, CA 94041lance@Roma.orc.olivetti.com (Lance Berc) (05/19/88)
From today's WSJ (pg10: IBM, Digital, Others Form Coalition On Unix...)
They cordoned off an area at Apollo's headquarters in Chelmsford,
Mass., and put together a team of about fifty, consisting mainly
of technical and marketing people - and "eight million lawyers",
said Mr. Vanderslice (CEO Apollo).
Just whats needed when it's time to design/develop a new operating system:
a thundering herd of lawyers and marketeers all driven to blood lust with
thoughts of a piece of that $90,000,000 cash cow about to be unleashed...
Not an auspicious beginning for the technical design process. I agree with
the 1% to the FSF approach...
lance
lance@orc.olivetti.com
lance%orc.olivetti.com@unix.sri.com
Lance M. Berc Phone: (415) 496-6248
Olivetti Research Center Internet: lance@orc.olivetti.com, or
2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 210 lance%orc.uucp@unix.sri.com
Menlo Park, CA 94025 UUCP: {acornrc,oliveb,sri-unix}!orc!lancenate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess) (05/19/88)
In article <5469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> randy@umn-cs.UUCP (Randy Orrison) writes: >What a waste. Could you imagine what those resources could do applied to >the goals of the Free Software Foundation? In the February edition of GNU's Bulletin, page 4, there is an announcement that is rather interesting, especially when compared to the $90M that the OSF is starting with: Our First Large Donation ------------------------ Software Research Associates, a Japanese software house, has donated $10,000 to the GNU project. In addition they plan to send us a Sun-like SONY workstation and lend us a staff programmer for 6 months. This represents the influence of Kouichi Kishida, who organized the Japanese Sigma project (to stimulate Unix competence in Japan), only to conclude later that the project had gone astray and that a "grass roots movement" was needed instead. We hope to be this movement. [Copyright (C) 1988 by Free Software Foundation, Inc.] --woodstock -- "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?" ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!nate <domainish> : nate@mipos3.intel.com ATT : (408) 765-4309
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (05/20/88)
In article <754@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > Reading between the lines, I gather they're going to rewrite EVERYTHING so > that it contains no ATT licensed code. If they pull it off, many people > will be very happy. Why will removing AT&T & Sun from the code and putting IBM, DEC, et al in the code make so many people happy? It'll make IBM, DEC et al happy-- that I can understand. Just who is going to be happy that they're jumping from the AT&T frying pan into the IBM fire? -- Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan sullivan@vsi.com HE V MTL Anybody out there remember Max Webster?
decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (05/20/88)
> The Open Software Foundation has $90Million in funding, and are going > to be hiring "hundreds" of people. > > I don't care about WHY they're doing it. > > Reading between the lines, I gather they're going to rewrite EVERYTHING so > that it contains no ATT licensed code. If they pull it off, many people > will be very happy. I only wish they had given the money to GNU (I know > some people talked to some other people) or UCB. > > Regardless of what happens, it's going to be an exciting time in the ole' > Unix world. I agree. Note that OSF also includes a university research program. Dave Decot hpda!decot
mb@ttidca.TTI.COM (Michael Bloom) (05/20/88)
In article <754@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
< The Open Software Foundation has $90Million in funding, and are going
< to be hiring "hundreds" of people.
.....
< Reading between the lines, I gather they're going to rewrite EVERYTHING so
< that it contains no ATT licensed code. If they pull it off, many people
< will be very happy. I only wish they had given the money to GNU (I know
< some people talked to some other people) or UCB.
Curious, the similarity between the names "Free" and "Open" Software
Foundation. Perhaps this is the start of "glasnost" in the Un*x world...
Seriously, what you are wishing for is a *damn* good idea in my
opinion. Perhaps if enough of the potential customers of this new
organization share this opinion and *voice* it (!), it could come to
pass. Doing so could end up having much more productive results than
just sitting back, waiting to see what happens.
Certainly rms and crew have demonstrated high levels of competence, quality
and productivity. An investment by the OSF in the FSF could pay off
handsomely.
The question is: Is this new organization *really* interested in
producing a non-proprietary system, or one that is still proprietary
but the terms of which (no royalties to ATT) are more to their liking?
If the latter, I see no special incentive (especially since, the last
I heard, Locus still does not support the fast file system) to switch
from AT&T licensed code to OSF licensed code.
The royalty fees will most likely be competitive (although there will
also be the opportunity for price wars).
- mbmishkin@apollo.uucp (Nathaniel Mishkin) (05/20/88)
In article <3166@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: >>NEW YORK, N.Y., May 17, 1988---Seven leading computer companies today >>announced an international foundation to develop and provide a >>completely open software environment to make it easier for customers >>to use computers and software from many vendors. > > Huh? How does creating an alternative standard help do that? >Look at some of the areas of "standardization", like graphics standards, >pick one. > > >AT&T and Sun are taking a step that should have been taken years >ago. It is exactly what the marketplace needs. And who better to do >it than those who drive the development of the two main strains? >I don't think we want this done by a committee. On the other hand >one can see the Hamilton Group's problem with this. They do not want >to have to play catch up all the time. But in reality, isn't that >what they are doing anyway? None of those companies has the ability >to effect changes to System V or SunOS (BSD) at the current time. Why >should Sun and AT&T allow them to in the future? Let me state up front that the following are *my* opinions, and not those of Apollo Computer, for whom I happen to work: With my simple engineer hat on, I can see how the AT&T/Sun Unix collaboration has (had?) a lot going for it. Unifying Unix (especially the BSD and System V derivative) is clearly a desirable thing. The problem is the way in which the unification was happening. There are two aspects to this: First, getting System V Release 3 (and presumably later releases) requires companies to sign a fairly (shall we say) "heavyweight" contract obliging the companies to do all sorts of things. The set of "things" is not necessary stable either (i.e. they could be different and Release 4), thus making a company's long-term planning rather hard. As a result, it's not clear that all companies could or would sign onto later System V releases, making the issue of unification moot. A second aspect to the problem with the way the unification was happening was that no one other than Sun or AT&T appeared to have any opportunity to have input into the process. I'm not asking for votes, or committees, or stuff like that. I'm just talking about AT&T saying that they'd at least listen to and consider ideas that didn't originate at AT&T and Sun. I think they have lots of bright people, but they're not *that* bright and they don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. Now admittedly, the foregoing is something of a vendor's point of view. But I have to believe that ultimately these things that are bad for vendors end up being bad for end users. Do end users want to put the nature of future software into the hands of a particular set of vested interests? Do end users really want to see the set of computer vendors reduced because all but two are put at the disadvantage of getting the latest software at a 6-12 month lag? > There are too many standardization groups out there anyway. Sun >and AT&T are *doing* something about the problem right now. Look at >how long the ANSI C effort is taking and that is just one group. All >of the UNIX-related standardization groups will have to get together >sometime and converge on a single standard. The intention (at least) is that OSF *not* be a standardization committee. OSF is a not-for-profit software company that will make open decisions based upon input from a wide variety of inputs. They will integrate existing software (some of which will come from the OSF sponsors) and write software from scratch if they have to. Further, it is my understanding that, contrary to comments otherwise, at least some software that OSF distributes will be subject to licenses created by organizations other than OSF. (Although presumably OSF will not distribute software subject to the kind of "heavyweight" licenses currently associated with System V Release 3.) I don't think anyone knows how this will work out for sure, but I think it's worth a shot. I'd rather place the state of my future software into the hands of an organization structured along the lines of OSF than into the hands of for-profit companies that have already at least partially closed the door on outside input. -- -- Nat Mishkin Apollo Computer Inc. Chelmsford, MA {decvax,mit-eddie,umix}!apollo!mishkin
ced@apollo.uucp (Carl Davidson) (05/21/88)
From article <3275@phri.UUCP>, by roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith): > Curious that there is no mention of NeWS, IP/TCP, or NFS. Did Sun not join > because they didn't want to or because they weren't asked? > -- It's my understanding that IBM's AIX (at least the version OSF is going to use as a base) includes TCP/IP and may include NFS. As to NeWS, I have no information. I do know that X Window is on the Level 0 list. I also understand that Sun had a chance to sign on and chose not to, as did AT&T. The opinions expressed above are unsubstantiated rumors. Surprisingly, they are not those of Apollo Computer Inc., the Open Software Foundation, or National Public Radio. 8-) -- --Carl Davidson "Science is what you do Apollo Computer Inc. after you guess well." Chelmsford, MA 01824 {decvax,mit-eddie,umix}!apollo!ced
wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) (05/21/88)
Nat Mishkin commented on the weightiness of the SVR3 license. I'll second his comment. I'm not sure if MIT ever signed it or not, but last I heard (a few months ago), the lawyers from both sides had been going at it for a few _months_ trying to find a license which both sides would sign. It was blocking our acquisition of Mach; I'm not sure whether we signed the license, or whether the requirement of a SVR3 license as a precondition for Mach was dropped. Why was the license such a problem? Well, I've heard two reasons (from someone who was peripherally involved with the negotiations), and there are probably more. * MIT doesn't like the use of the word "indemnify" in the contract---it refuses to take responsibility for any alleged monetary damages to AT&T resulting from disclosure of the source (instead, it will "make its best efforts" to prevent disclosure). * MIT also didn't like the comments about "you cannot show this code to foreign nationals", because foreign nationals make up 10-15% of the student body here, MIT does not consider it in its interest to "separate" them in any way from the rest of the student body (this is also an issue with . - Bill
david@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) (05/21/88)
In article <3c2b0431.bf08@apollo.uucp>, ced@apollo.uucp (Carl Davidson) writes: > I also understand that Sun had a chance to sign on and chose not to, as did AT&T. I have heard from reliable sources inside Sun that Scott McNealy received a Federal Express package that contained membership information for OSF *THE MORNING* of the press release. They were not asked to be one of the founding members. -- David Robinson elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu ARPA david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov ARPA {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!david UUCP Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway!
jqj@uoregon.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson) (05/21/88)
The discussion seems to have shifted from OSF to SysV R3 licenses. One of the major complaints I heard from people at both DEC and HP last year was that AT&T was requiring SVID compliance (including full compliance with the SV test suite even though the suite had not been fully released at the time) for *any* code that made use of or was derived from any part of the Sys V sources. HP in particular is in the business of making more than workstations; I can imagine how they might want to incorporate awk or streams or something in rom in a lab device, pay the U..X license fee for the device, but not incorporate *all* of SysVR3 in the device. Can anyone report on whether this is still a sticking point for potential AT&T licensees?
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/23/88)
> Certainly rms and crew have demonstrated high levels of competence, quality > and productivity... Unfortunately, they have also demonstrated a set of priorities and beliefs that many people don't go along with, plus a distinct lack of flexibility when said priorities and beliefs become an issue... > An investment by the OSF in the FSF could pay off handsomely. Do remember that RMS and, say, IBM have very different ideas of what "pay off handsomely" ought to mean. I seriously doubt that a meeting of the minds there is very likely. Pity, it would do both of them good to be a bit more open-minded... -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (05/24/88)
in article <3c2a41f6.13422@apollo.uucp>, mishkin@apollo.uucp (Nathaniel Mishkin) says: > > Let me state up front that the following are *my* opinions, and not those > of Apollo Computer, for whom I happen to work: > > With my simple engineer hat on, I can see how the AT&T/Sun Unix > collaboration has (had?) a lot going for it. Unifying Unix (especially > the BSD and System V derivative) is clearly a desirable thing. The problem > is the way in which the unification was happening. There are two aspects > to this: First, getting System V Release 3 (and presumably later releases) > requires companies to sign a fairly (shall we say) "heavyweight" contract > obliging the companies to do all sorts of things. The set of "things" > is not necessary stable either (i.e. they could be different and Release Evolution is not necessarily stable....as Apollo itself has found in their migration from Aegis to Apollo Unix (AUX) and then Domain/IX and soon SR10 Unix... and apparently to now some future version of AIX from IBM. > 4), thus making a company's long-term planning rather hard. As a result, How could it be harder than the above migrations? > A second aspect to the problem with the way the unification was happening > was that no one other than Sun or AT&T appeared to have any opportunity > to have input into the process. I'm not asking for votes, or committees, > or stuff like that. I'm just talking about AT&T saying that they'd at > least listen to and consider ideas that didn't originate at AT&T and > Sun. I think they have lots of bright people, but they're not *that* > bright and they don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. I might understand Apollo's problems but I seem to remember that a number the Hamilton Group dropped out and stated that they where satisfied with AT&T "concessions". One of those was Gould, whose President stated that they would take AT&T up on the promise of being able to give puts to future versions of Unix. Others were Unisys and MIPS. I couldn't help but notice Silicon Graphics absence from the OSF "announcement". Obviously there are some groups that have not bought OSF(correct-me-if-i'm-wrong-i'm- sure-you-will) . Let's face it the OSF members do not have a sparkling history with regards to contributions to Unix. AT&T stated they would not open up the laboratory but would take inputs from the industry. > Now admittedly, the foregoing is something of a vendor's point of view. > But I have to believe that ultimately these things that are bad for > vendors end up being bad for end users. I don't see how a licensible unified Unix is all that terrible. > Do end users want to put the > nature of future software into the hands of a particular set of vested > interests? They have for years. AT&T has constantly had the first versions of System V.... > Do end users really want to see the set of computer vendors > reduced because all but two are put at the disadvantage of getting the > latest software at a 6-12 month lag? Actually I don't buy this ... Apollo and IBM have both lagged badly (i would guess at much more than a year) from the remainder of Unix industry with regards to their Unix implementations .... ... somehow their are other virtues with these machines ... as they still are in the market- place. > (Although presumably OSF will not distribute software > subject to the kind of "heavyweight" licenses currently associated with > System V Release 3.) Isn't that a presumption. What mechanisms would prevent this? The OSF is interesting also because none of the members are bound to use the stuff. > it's worth a shot. I'd rather place the state of my future software > into the hands of an organization structured along the lines of OSF than > into the hands of for-profit companies that have already at least partially > closed the door on outside input. I'd rather see a Unified Unix based on the wealth of software already in existence than on the promises of companies that have fought Unix from it's inception. -------------- Naturally My Opinions Are My Own and not those of my employers.
ram%shukra@Sun.COM (Renu Raman) (05/24/88)
Charles Ditzel wrote: >I might understand Apollo's problems but I seem to remember that a number >the Hamilton Group dropped out and stated that they where satisfied with >AT&T "concessions". One of those was Gould, whose President stated that >they would take AT&T up on the promise of being able to give puts to future >versions of Unix. Others were Unisys and MIPS. I couldn't help but notice >Silicon Graphics absence from the OSF "announcement". Obviously there are >Naturally My Opinions Are My Own and not those of my employers. Mine too: Its very interesting to note that the seven-not-so-dwarfs don't ship/have UNIX as their primary OS. Gould, SGI, MIPS, et. al have Unix as their primary and probably only OS. Is it because they are totally dependent on ATT (right now at least - from licensing perspective) for Unix or was it by Choice. Ofcourse it may well be that these companies could join OSF at a later date (including Sun and who knows ATT too :-))? personal opinion: The seven-not-so-dwarfs is composed of strange bedfellows. Its composed of companies who are serious about this and companies that are not-so-serious. proof: Olsen (DEC pres.) says in 5/16/88 issue of businees week (the cover article is a profile on Olsen & DEC) "networking is so complicated that no customer in its right mind would trust company business to software that was controlled by a committee made up of mutual competitors. "The open network will be as exciting as a Russian truck," - Olsen quips. Boy, a week later the russian truck was ordered:-). enuff said... I have to reiterate here: My Opinions Are My Own and not those of my employers.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/25/88)
In article <3c2a41f6.13422@apollo.uucp> mishkin@apollo.UUCP (Nathaniel Mishkin) writes: >First, getting System V Release 3 (and presumably later releases) >requires companies to sign a fairly (shall we say) "heavyweight" contract >obliging the companies to do all sorts of things. >is not necessary stable either (i.e. they could be different and Release >4), thus making a company's long-term planning rather hard. As a result, >it's not clear that all companies could or would sign onto later System >V releases, making the issue of unification moot. He has an excellent point. In the grand tradition of overpricing the AT&T 7300 and unbundling all the software that aught to come standard with UNIX, eg. development tools, wwb, etc...., AT&T's methods of going to market with their products will undermind all the technical skills of their people. God, I just hope this desease doesn't spread to Sun! -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (05/28/88)
He has an excellent point. In the grand tradition of overpricing the
AT&T 7300 and unbundling all the software that aught to come standard with
UNIX, eg. development tools, wwb, etc...., AT&T's methods of going to market
with their products will undermind all the technical skills of their people.
God, I just hope this desease doesn't spread to Sun!
Perhaps it has. Pascal and Fortran have been unbundled, but that's okay,
as nobody uses them anyway :-)
George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation
..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826
Largo, FL 34649-2826
(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?edward@csvaxa.UUCP (Edward Wilkinson) (05/28/88)
I agree with the sentiment that even a tiny fraction of that $90 M
would go a *long* way towards helping FSF. Rms and friends are doing a
magnificent job on next to no funds at all. Unfortunately, a recent
note in the info-gnu mailing list suggests that OSF have no intention
of producing a Public Domain version of Unix. This is crazy. After
all the standardisation efforts, we're diverging again.
To help the situation, why doesn't someone from AT&T or Sun put out a
statement saying that the V.4 or whatever will NOT be Sparc-dependant
& will run on all chips. If AT&T can promise this & reverse their
restrictive licencing agreements, there will be no NEED for OSF.
Let's not stuff things up just as Unix was getting popular.
#include <std-disclaimer.h>
--
Ed Wilkinson @ Computer Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ
uucp: {uunet,watmath!cantuar}!vuwcomp!csvaxa!edward DTE: 530163000005
Janet/Greybook: E.Wilkinson@nz.ac.massey Phone: +64 63 69099 x8587
CSnet/ACSnet/Internet: E.Wilkinson@massey.ac.nz New Zealand = GMT+12guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (05/29/88)
> God, I just hope this desease doesn't spread to Sun! > > Perhaps it has. Pascal and Fortran have been unbundled, but that's okay, > as nobody uses them anyway :-) Note: the unbundling of Pascal and FORTRAN was in no way prompted by any action on the part of AT&T. AT&T doesn't run Sun, or dictate its software marketing policies (except to the extent that their licenses do so). We have no expectation that they will do so in the future. Sun is not a subsidiary of AT&T. I have no expectation that Sun will become a subsidiary of AT&T in the future, and I know of nobody within Sun who has such an expectation. Sun and AT&T are two separate companies, and will probably continue to be so for the forseeable future. Please keep that in mind. (This wasn't aimed at you, Jim, just aimed at a lot of people with what appears to be an unrealistic idea of what the relationship between Sun and AT&T.)
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (05/30/88)
In article <3166@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: |In article <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: |> NEW FOUNDATION TO ADVANCE SOFTWARE STANDARDS, | ^^^^^^^ |> DEVELOP AND PROVIDE OPEN SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT | | More like they want to reimplement the wheel and call it something |else because they don't want to follow AT&T and Sun's lead. I was under the impression that they were going to be considerably more open with licensing and source distribution. I believe that the original article said 'reasonable, stable licensing' -- neither of which AT&T supplies. If you don't agree, how much *does* it cost for an AT&T source license? And what are the terms? And how has the licensing changed even between releases of SysV? I don't consider it reasonable, and the new difficulties some educators are having getting licenses that they've always had in the past does not promote the idea of stability. One man's opinion. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (05/30/88)
> To help the situation, why doesn't someone from AT&T or Sun put out a > statement saying that the V.4 or whatever will NOT be Sparc-dependant > & will run on all chips. OK: S5R4 will not be SPARC-dependent. It will run on at least the following: 68K (a small California computer maker named Sun Microsystems has a product line that includes 68K-based machines, and I think they'd insist on it running on 68Ks; furthermore, Unisoft is talking about doing a 68K port of it for Motorola) 80386 (a small California computer maker named Sun Microsystems - OK, in this case a small Massachusetts computer maker named Sun Microsystems :-) - and a small New Jersey computer maker named AT&T both have product lines that include 80386-based machines, and I think they'd insist on it running on 80386s) SPARC (a small California computer maker - oh, you've heard this one before...) WE32K (a small New Jersey computer maker....) and, from what I've seen, I assume it will also run on: 88K (Unisoft is also taking about doing an 88K port) MIPS R[23]K (they also have a deal with AT&T to develop an ABI) As for it running on any other chips, that's really up to the chip vendors; neither AT&T nor Sun are really in the business of porting it to every chip out there. I believe AT&T has stated that they will put out: 1) a 3B2 (WE32K) port followed by 2) a SPARC port, presumably to some future AT&T SPARC-based machine and 3) an 80386 port, presumably to the AT&T 6386 or somesuch machine.
esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) (05/30/88)
In article <54822@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: In article <14976@brl-adm.arpa> Root Boy Jim writes: >> >>> God, I just hope this desease doesn't spread to Sun! >> >> Perhaps it has. Pascal and Fortran have been unbundled, but that's okay, >> as nobody uses them anyway :-) > >Note: the unbundling of Pascal and FORTRAN was in no way prompted by any action >on the part of AT&T. AT&T doesn't run Sun, or dictate its software marketing >policies (except to the extent that their licenses do so). We have no >expectation that they will do so in the future. > Yet, this "unbundling" of UNIX software did start with ATT. Why has Sun continued it? I sure would like to see anything sold as UNIX by any vendor be compatible with the V7 manuals AT THE USERS COMMAND LEVEL. (I.E. chapter 1) Such a dreamer am I. -- In Real Life: Internet: esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu Eric S. Johnson II UUCP: ...{codas|gatech}!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!esj University of Florida Think of it as entropy in action :-)
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (05/30/88)
It appears that the whole flap over ABI (including accusations that "it does not solve anything") is entirely the result of wild speculation in the popular press that ABI was supposed to be a totally universal binary standard. Those of us who work with the vast variety of available CPUs knew this was a silly concept, and concluded that Sun and AT&T were intending to force SPARC down everyone's throats. Or, we concluded that it was all puffery, yet another a.out format pesented by the marketing department. I know I thought that when ABI was first announced. A pity. What ABI *does* accomplish is important and useful (would you like to see your Sun 3 binaries run on a Tandy 6000? ABI makes it possible), but it is being mired down by people's unfulfilled expectations. Expecting platinum, the people throw the gold down the sewer.... <csg>
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (05/30/88)
>>the unbundling of Pascal and FORTRAN was in no way prompted by any action >>on the part of AT&T. AT&T doesn't run Sun.... > >Yet, this "unbundling" of UNIX software did start with ATT. Why has Sun >continued it? Pyramid has been unbundling lots of stuff since day 1, including ethernet for pity's sake. I don't see anyone accusing us of being manipulated by AT&T. :-) (Pyramid doesn't even ship AT&T's compilers; it developed its own.) Heerz the facts: - Software isn't free. There are costs to develop, maintain, support, write and print documentation, and train staff. If it's on the release tape, you are paying for it. If it's bundled, you just don't see the cost. Languages are particularly expensive. - The vast majority of Pyramid's customers -- probably Sun's too -- don't want Fortran or Pascal. Why should they pay for something they don't want? - This is a competative market. Vendors regularly go up for bids where the lowest price wins. Unbundling allows a vendor to remove software that is not needed for the bid, thus reducing their quoted price. I think too many readers/posters on USENET have gotten their exposure to UNIX in universities, and somehow concluded that the software is essentially free. If all you want to do is roll the 4.3BSD tapes onto your VAX, go for it, and have fun. But if you want to sell stable, high-performance systems to users who still have trouble with the RETURN key, then you need to do a lot more. That involves costs that not only make unbundling justifiable, but essential. The real irony -- makes me sick, actually -- is to think how much trauma it has caused some vendors (including Sun and Pyramid), as they wrestled with themselves over what should be unbundled, what should not, and how to package it. None of us actually *like* the idea; we're all UNIX hackers, too. But the marketplace necessitates such things. I do think AT&T has gone to ludicrous extremes in its unbundling frenzy. But don't drag Sun into it by insinuation. <csg>
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (05/30/88)
> Yet, this "unbundling" of UNIX software did start with ATT. Why has Sun > continued it? Many vendors have unbundled various pieces of UNIX. Not all of them have done so just because AT&T did so. I don't know why we unbundled our compilers, except that it's not because AT&T unbundled "nroff".... > I sure would like to see anything sold as UNIX by any vendor be > compatible with the V7 manuals AT THE USERS COMMAND LEVEL. (I.E. chapter 1) > > Such a dreamer am I. Definitely. For one thing, some entries in the SVID specify behavior *different* from the behavior specified in the V7 manuals. For another, some of the commands in the V7 manual are old and obsolete ("tp", for instance) and it makes no sense for everybody to bundle them into their UNIXes. Others were written in assembler; if you want every UNIX out there to support "bas", you'd better volunteer to rewrite it in C....
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (05/31/88)
In article <54849@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: |I don't know why we unbundled our compilers, |except that it's not because AT&T unbundled "nroff".... As I heard it, one of the reasons was that Sun wanted to better understand the needs of the customers. When all of the compilers are bundled (i.e. 'free'), they had no way to measure how 'popular' the compiler was. As an extreme example :-), suppose no-one EVER used Pascal on a Sun-4. How much money should Sun spend to support the compiler? By unbundling the compilers, they can measure the 'popularity' of the package. Or else thay just wanted to create more paperwork :-) -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
dan@maccs.UUCP (Dan Trottier) (05/31/88)
In article <54822@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: >> God, I just hope this desease doesn't spread to Sun! >> >> Perhaps it has. Pascal and Fortran have been unbundled, but that's okay, >> as nobody uses them anyway :-) > >Note: the unbundling of Pascal and FORTRAN was in no way prompted by any action >on the part of AT&T. AT&T doesn't run Sun, or dictate its software marketing >policies (except to the extent that their licenses do so). We have no >expectation that they will do so in the future. So just why was Pascal and FORTRAN unbundled? I understand from a marketing standpoint the benefits of unbundling these languages but what is happening to your Berkeley origins? Even things as sacred as games have been pruned :-( What is next? UUCP? Mail? Csh? [NT]roff? or dare I say C? [Yes I know only the Csh is Berkeley. Substitute your favorite BSD utilities] Wait for the Sun 5 series. Kernel in ROM and a lot of empty disk :-) Sure Unix only costs me $500.00 but it would be nice to have a few commands. Dan Trottier <<<<<<<<<<<< These are my opinions, mine all mine so lay off >>>>>>>>>>>> -- A.I. - is a three toed sloth! | ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!dan -- Official scrabble players dictionary -- | dan@mcmaster.BITNET
ehrlich@blitz (Dan Ehrlich) (05/31/88)
In article <54822@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: >Sun is not a subsidiary of AT&T. I have no expectation that Sun will become a >subsidiary of AT&T in the future, and I know of nobody within Sun who has such >an expectation. > >Sun and AT&T are two separate companies, and will probably continue to be so >for the forseeable future. Please keep that in mind. > It is my understanding the AT&T currently owns 20% of SUN Microsystems' stock (it may be less with options up to 20%). Anytime a single company or individual owns that large a block of stock they most assuredly can influence major decisions. The operative wording above is "for the forseeable future". If AT&T comes to the conclusion that SUN is doing something it does not like, it could exert quite a bit of pressure to get things done differently. I would be very surprised if AT&T did not use the power that comes with owning 20% of a company to change something they percieved as bad for AT&T's business. Dan Ehrlich <ehrlich@blitz.cs.psu.edu> | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are The Pennsylvania State University | my own, and should not be atributed Department of Computer Science | to anyone else, living or dead. 334B Whitmore Laboratory |
marc@apollo.uucp (Marc Gibian) (06/01/88)
I have a few personal observations on the OSF which I believe are
independent of the fact that I am employed by the company that initiated
its creation.
It seems to me that the needs of the users, and therefore of software
vendors, have not yet been addressed by the computer industry. Users
want to be able to treat computer hardware and their operating systems
like other technological products, such as radios, TVs, tape recorders,
etc.... The success of UNIX to date is due to the fact that it more
closely approaches this goal than any other operating system, to date. A
major reason for this is that it has been ported to a multitude of machines,
initially by the accademic community, and then by commercial vendors.
(due to ease of porting and the need for a standard)
The OSF is to me an industry statement that the defacto standard
that is the ATT supplied UNIX is no longer an adequate solution to the
problem. Many reasons have been stated in previous postings so I will
not attempt to list them. I do believe that OSF offers a better solution
than the current mechanism because it is:
1) An organization with the sole purpose of providing a single
set of software to be the base software for all hardware platforms
(that choose to use it).
2) An organization commited to providing platform independent base
software.
3) An organization to provide a common software implementation of various
computer standards, such as POSIX.
4) An organization NOT commited to selling any product that sells due
to factors other than the three previous factors.
There is a lot of speculation about the motivations behind IBM and DEC,
and about particularly IBM's contribution of AIX. It strikes me that AIX
is mearly a starting point... That the diversity of the original sponsors,
and their hardware products, insures significant evolution from this base.
I do not think that the presence of the European companies should be
minimized.
The ability of OSF to sell its product is directly tied to how well it
provides the standard platform that the users need. This is our best
assurance that it will do just that.
Marc S. Gibian
email: marc@apollo.UUCPjima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) (06/01/88)
| Unfortunately, a recent | note in the info-gnu mailing list suggests that OSF have no intention | of producing a Public Domain version of Unix. At least present day FSF licenses all contain restrictions that make FSF software very difficult to use in commercial environments. For example, if I were to develop commercial software on a Gnu Un*x work-alike system, using Gnu C, Gnu C libraries, etc, then the commercial software that I wrote would contain embedded copies of code derived from Gnu libraries, which appears to me to make the commercial software subject to Gnu software licensing restrictions. Which could potentially prove catastrophic to the commercial company making this mistake. So it is unclear to me how many people would be able to use the Gnu public domain version of software, unless they are willing to buy into Stallman's ethics of software development and distribution, and are willing to work in a environment very different than today's traditional commercial environment. I'm not saying this would be good or bad -- its just that Stallman's licensing agreements don't seem to me to correspond to the traditional concept of "public domain" software, and I hope everyone is aware of the difference. If not, please read the Gnu Manisfesto, and the Gnu licensing agreements. I like Gnu products, I am just sorry that I am unable to use them "on the job." And you cannot expect corporations to make many donations to help develop "products" they cannot use, nor to support someone who openly opposes the standard, legal, every day software development ethics as practiced in most "software" companies today. Again, I'm not saying "right" or "wrong", I'm just saying "reality". Mine own opinions only.
jbs@fenchurch.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (06/01/88)
In article <3648@psuvax1.psu.edu> ehrlich@blitz.cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) writes: >It is my understanding the AT&T currently owns 20% of SUN Microsystems' >stock (it may be less with options up to 20%). It is also interesting to note that at 20%, AT&T is the largest shareholder. As part of the agreement, should another party accumulate more than a 20% holding, AT&T will be allowed to purchase additional shares to maintain its top position. Jeff Siegal
sxn%ingersoll@Sun.COM (Stephen X. Nahm) (06/01/88)
In article <3648@psuvax1.psu.edu> ehrlich@blitz.cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) writes: >It is my understanding the AT&T currently owns 20% of SUN Microsystems' >stock (it may be less with options up to 20%). Not true. AT&T can and has bought 5% of Sun's stock on the open market. The remaining 15% of Sun's stock will be sold to AT&T at Sun's discretion. This stock will be newly issued shared and AT&T will buy the shares at a fixed percentage premium over the current market price (averaged over about 20 days). So far, Sun has issued AT&T about an additional 2.5% (of Sun's outstanding) shares. The average price was about $36, and AT&T bought these for around the low- to mid-forties. > Anytime a single >company or individual owns that large a block of stock they most >assuredly can influence major decisions. This, of course, is true (even given that AT&T now owns "only" 7.5% of Sun). We now return you to comp.osf.debate (from this brief excursion into comp.finances.AT&T.sun). Steve Nahm sxn@sun.COM or sun!sxn
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (06/01/88)
In article <4538@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) writes: > As I heard it, one of the reasons was that Sun wanted to better > understand the needs of the customers. When all of the compilers are > bundled (i.e. 'free'), they had no way to measure how 'popular' > the compiler was. One method which has been tried by other manufacturers is surveys. I remember Burroughs did one for the mainframes that I saw (in fact I learned about a programming technique on those machines from that survey; they asked whether anyone was doing X, and that was the first time I ever heard that X was possible). Another possible source is bug reports. If you are in the business of producing, say, a library package which is supposed to be callable from Fortran, Pascal, and C, your package might be written entirely in C, and the only use you might have for Fortran or Pascal might be to test the interface every so often. The utility of the Fortran and Pascal compilers is then much lower to you, but the price is set by other customers who are using them all the time. GF77, anyone?
ehrlich@blitz (Dan Ehrlich) (06/02/88)
In article <54988@sun.uucp> sxn@sun.UUCP (Stephen X. Nahm) writes: >> Anytime a single >>company or individual owns that large a block of stock they most >>assuredly can influence major decisions. > >This, of course, is true (even given that AT&T now owns "only" 7.5% of Sun). >Steve Nahm sxn@sun.COM or sun!sxn Well... If I owned 7.5% of any company this would almost guarantee a seat on the board of directors. Being on a board always looks good on a vitae. Anyway, a 7.5% stake still gives AT&T a mighty big stick to beat SUN over the head with if they get upset. Dan Ehrlich <ehrlich@blitz.cs.psu.edu> | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are The Pennsylvania State University | my own, and should not be attributed Department of Computer Science | to anyone else, living or dead. University Park, PA 16802 |