pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (05/23/88)
As most of us, deep in our hearts, know, this situation is more complex
than the black and white scenarios that have been painted.
My own three cents:
1. I can't accept the simplistic and blanket motives that have been ascribed
to the OSF contingent. The major European companies have been working to-
gether towards a Unix standard for several years; there have been several
reasons advanced for this but regardless, the depth of this effort does
not point to an attempt to subvert Unix. Of the U.S. companies that are
part of OSF, it appears to me that HP and NCR have more to lose than
gain by confusing the issue. Both companies have had clearly defined
markets for their Unix products, which they probably would have great
difficulty competing in with proprietary operating systems.
This leaves Apollo, DEC, and IBM. Each has a history that would tend to
support theories of nefarious intentions. But my own sense is that
Apollo, at least, was in an untenable situation: dependent on its chief
competitor to be even-handed.
2. There is a small chance that this development may result in the creation
of a new element that I believe is long overdue: a "heavyweight" user
group that has sufficient economic force to counter some of the nonsense
and capriciousness that virtually all of the major Unix vendors have
exhibited. I do not believe in altruistic computer vendors.
TOPS, of course, is my "model" here, even tho I realize that that
situation is substantially different. This is not to say that GM, ele-
ments of the federal government, and others will necessarily "represent"
the broad interests of the Unix user community all that well. But they
may help to truly advance the notion of an "open system".
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that Unix can grow into a
major challenge to vendor-specific mini/mainframe operating systems and
still remain under the unchallenged control of AT&T (and now Sun).
While OSF may be a threat to the continuing growth of Unix, it is also a
sign that Unix is making its presence felt in a very substantial way.
I believe that the latter is the fundamental "motive" for the creation
of OSF, rather than the specific details of what pushed DEC, IBM, and
others to act. Those come in to play in the organizational structure
and the future actions of OSF itself. Is it really believable that
these companies would entrust much of their future revenues and perhaps
even existence to the good graces of several competitors ? Next to this,
issues such as licensing fees are inconsequential.
greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
Next to this, issues such as licensing costs are inconsequential. pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (05/23/88)
MAP, not TOPS..
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (06/02/88)
In article <569@hscfvax.harvard.edu> pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes: > 2. There is a small chance that this development may result in the creation > of a new element that I believe is long overdue: a "heavyweight" user > group that has sufficient economic force to counter some of the nonsense > and capriciousness that virtually all of the major Unix vendors have > exhibited. I do not believe in altruistic computer vendors. In my Honeywell days, I got to attend a HLSUA session in which the vendor had to sit in a meeting where the misfeatures and weaknesses of the system were discussed, pritoritzed and imposed, by popular vote, on HW to fix. And then report on their progress since the last session. Scawwy stuff for a new graduate who tended to believe the (then current) company line. That's the kind of pressure I'd like to see on all the vendors, to counteract the biases of pure market pressures... --dave -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers Ltd., | "His Majesty made you a major 350 Steelcase Road, | because he believed you would Markham, Ontario. | know when not to obey his orders"