devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) (03/16/88)
Doug Gwyn wrote: > I don't know what you mean by this ["Each new version of System V has become more onerous."] Guess I wasn't clear. I meant that AT&T has moved away from the days of a note saying "here's your release tape, have fun" to the current stance of "if you want to call your product conformant with Rel 3 but it doesn't pass SVVS, AT&T can order it withdrawn from the market". That type of sanctioning power restrains the growth of Unix and serves to perpetuate the problem of multiple Unix varieties. Many companies don't want to spend development dollars just to see if AT&T deigns to approve it. > If you refer to the requirement that VARs advertising their systems > as UNIX System V conform to the SVID, why is that a problem? It's > exactly what many customers want, and what has been specified in many > government procurement actions. Customers don't want SVID conformance, per se, they simply want a standard Unix. Period. In today's market they have a choice of SVID or waiting for Posix. But many sales are made according to what is available *now*. > While on this topic, the NBS-proposed > POSIX-based FIPS is by no means a suitable replacement for the SVID; > it does not provide nearly as comprehensive and "crisp" a specification > as the SVID does; therefore it does not meet end-user needs nearly so well. I don't know what you mean by this. Please cite some examples that show the lack of "crispness". I know of some differences in areas of features, but, none should be overwhelming. And which SVID are you talking about? This year's version or the semi-announced revision that is due out next year? If the Posix/FIPS is not a replacement for SVID then the hoped for growth of Unix as a vendor-independent OS will suffer from the split identity problem it now does. Finally, for those who are not bored with this discussion, take a look at the April issue of UnixWorld. I've been told it has some articles on the Sun/AT&T and DEC/HP/Apollo/etc. competing views on Unix's future. Bob Devine
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/19/88)
In article <8803160024.AA06947@decwrl.dec.com> devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) writes: >Doug Gwyn wrote: > >> If you refer to the requirement that VARs advertising their systems >> as UNIX System V conform to the SVID, why is that a problem? It's >> exactly what many customers want, and what has been specified in many >> government procurement actions. > > Customers don't want SVID conformance, per se, they simply want ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >a standard Unix. Period. In today's market they have a choice >of SVID or waiting for Posix. But many sales are made according to >what is available *now*. Hmmm.. strange that vendors start dictating what customers want or think their customers want. Smacks of the kind of thinking large companies ... this is the same kind of thinking that says "Oh customer! You are really dumb! We are the big boys and know everything and will decide what's right for you and what we think we should support!". > If the Posix/FIPS is not a replacement for SVID then the hoped for >growth of Unix as a vendor-independent OS will suffer from the split >identity problem it now does. Bob, let me ask you this what is DEC doing ensure vendor-independent OS? Merely complaining isn't what you have in mind I'm sure. > Finally, for those who are not bored with this discussion, take a >look at the April issue of UnixWorld. I've been told it has some articles ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >on the Sun/AT&T and DEC/HP/Apollo/etc. competing views on Unix's future. Instead of saying "I've been told", I would suggest you take a look and give us your straight views instead. >Bob Devine -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"