andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (11/27/90)
In article <3300224@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I think Andy@Theory.Stanford.Edu has a very warped perspective on >history. IBM fought 360/370 compatibles every step of the way, If the question is whether or not Sun is the first voluntarily open architecture company, IBM's reluctance is relevant. If the question is whether or not Sun is the first open architecture company, IBM's reluctance is irrelevant. >IBM is STILL fighting to keep others from making exploiting clones of >their architecture, all the way up until a few years back when they >were forced (by a lawsuit involving hitachi) to offer their operating >system for public sale. > >IBM is not now nor ever has been an open architecture company. Did the Hitachi suit result in source sales? If so, it predates Sun's policy. If we agree that IBM opened up only because of lawsuits, then it is important to consider whether or not Sun would have have the same result in similar lawsuits. If so, the question is whether or not Sun would have opened up without that club sitting in the back room, but it is a somewhat academic question, however, because the club is there. In any event, IBM's motives are irrelevant to the question "Is Sun the first open architecture company?" -andy -- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu BELLNET: (415) 723-3088