kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/01/70)
In article <18012@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <292@nuchat.UUCP> steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) writes: ><In article <1257@spice.cs.cmu.edu<, rfr@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Rashid) writes: ><< Proof of a 4.3 license is required before we can send a tape. Please keep >< ><Which in turn requires proof of an AT&T v7 liscense, right? Will ><we ever again have an operating system that doesn't represent a ><royalty stream for ma bell? > >This is one of the reasons the Free Software Foundation was set up. >Why don't you donate some money (tax deductable) to them if you really >feel strongly about it? [Could I contribute code? Poverty prevails!] Well, this one has been creating a little cerebral ulcer for a really long time, might as well cast a Net, and catch some flames... Among a long list of other phone injustices (like paying operator rates for pay phone calls now handled by robots...), the gall of AT&T claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. Suddenly divesture happens, and this magig product springs forth full grown from Zeus' forehead. Riiiight! Seems to me, right off hand, that an awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the mortal equivalent of public domain. Comments? (Flames I know I'm gonna get...reasoned comments???) Lacking this, the dozens of other companies running Unix and Unix clones, and suffering from user and code portability problems due to the incompatibility of operating systems developed in parallel from a common base, would probably be very clever to form a non-profit consortium to create a public domain Unix-with-tools, and make it well supported, totally portable, and widely available. Or, if one just happened to be sitting around ready to use ;-), supplying it with money and people-on-sabbatical to get the job done. (While I'm dreaming, why couldn't it be written in some maintainable language, like Modula II or Ada(tm), while I'm dreaming...) Kent, the man from xanth.
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (08/23/87)
In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >the gall of AT&T >claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was >developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, >specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. They were not in the computer business but they needed computers as tools. Thus it seems reasonable for them to work on computers FOR INTERNAL USE. As to the ownership of the Unix (brand) operating system, I imagine they'd argue that the profits from licensing Unix products helps them keep their line charges lower than they would be otherwise so the subscribers ARE deriving benefit from the product they helped fund. Another tack would be to say it was funded by the stockholders, not the subscribers. Operating a business on a cost plus guaranteed profit basis, as most regulated monopolies are, is a bad method anyway, and leads to confusion such as we have here, as well as inefficiencies. -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl#Kb#Kb#
guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (08/24/87)
> ... the gall of AT&T claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the > time Unix was developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated > monopoly, specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. > Suddenly divesture happens, and this magig product springs forth full grown > from Zeus' forehead. Riiiight! Seems to me, right off hand, that an > awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own > Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the > mortal equivalent of public domain. This seems a rather bizarre line of reasoning. By this argument, one could claim that the customers also own the rights to the 3B20 processor design; after all, it was developed before they were supposed to be in the computer business, and it was developed "with subscriber funds", right? Why not extend this, and say that the long-distance phone network, and any patents and other rights for Touch-Tone(TM) technology, etc., etc., etc. also belong to the customers? After all, they paid for it, right? Sorry, but the mere fact that people paid company X for product Y does not mean that the customers paid for everything that company X developed, and it definitely doesn't mean that the customers own the rights to everything that company X developed. As Phil Ngai pointed out, UNIX was developed as a tool for internal use (as well as a research project); they may have been enjoined from selling it as a full-fledged product (I've heard people claim that they weren't even enjoined from this, but I don't know), but they were entitled to sell it in unsupported form, just as they sold some other products. When the Consent Decree's restrictions were lifted, they had the perfect right to sell UNIX as a supported product. Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com
mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) (08/24/87)
In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >...Among a long list of other phone injustices (like paying operator >rates for pay phone calls now handled by robots...), the gall of AT&T >claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was >developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, >specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. Suddenly >divesture happens, and this magig product springs forth full grown >from Zeus' forehead. Riiiight! Seems to me, right off hand, that an >awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own >Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the >mortal equivalent of public domain. Before the net gets used up on this one [incidentally enriching AT&T], let's squelch this one quick with some facts. (Not defense of AT&T licensing practices, just some facts): 1) AT&T is, and always has been a private company. Contrary to occasional popular belief, or people who take "The President's Analyst" too seriously, it is NOT the government, which sometimes has rules about the required availability of software developed at govt expense. 2) It is rather unlikely that "an awfully good case" can be made that the customers own UNIX, just as it's unlikely that the customers own every single piece of technology ever developed at AT&T. (There have been various rules regarding patent licensing of patents during certain times, but none of these ever implied that UNIX be owned by the customers). 3) "equivalent of public domain" is just as an unlikely: AT&T does those things necessary to prevent it from becoming so, at least from V7 onward. 4) prohibitions from being in the computer business, regulated monopoly, etc, simply are irrelevant: they don't mean the customers own it. Also, people's emotional reactions to AT&T are also irrelevant. I am not a lawyer. With UNIX licensing, I've had numerous close encounters of all kinds, from inside and outside, over a lot of years. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (08/24/87)
In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: | ... the gall of AT&T | claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was | developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, | specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. Suddenly | divesture happens, and this magic product springs forth full grown | from Zeus' forehead. Riiiight! Seems to me, right off hand, that an | awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own | Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the | mortal equivalent of public domain. Interesting... I seem to remember that Unix V6 had to be sold as "surplus software" to permit Bell to claim that it was not in the computer business. Can anyone on the legal side comment on the above speculation? -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (08/24/87)
In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >Among a long list of other phone injustices (like paying operator >rates for pay phone calls now handled by robots...), the gall of AT&T >claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was >developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, >specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. Suddenly >divesture happens, and this magig product springs forth full grown >from Zeus' forehead. Riiiight! Seems to me, right off hand, that an >awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own >Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the >mortal equivalent of public domain. As I recall hearing the background story, Unix was put together by the former AT&T participants in the Multics project as a quick hack alternative to DEC's offerings for the PDP-x machine. It was budgeted as a office word processing system for some surplus DEC hardware laying around Bell Labs. Then people starting seeing it working and wanted copies. For years, educational institutions could get it for basically a copying charge. Commercial types who wanted it could only buy a source tape for some thousands of dollars, and Bell was specifically prohibited from providing ANY support to them; 'Here's your tape; we never want to see you again'. So pre-breakup, it WAS in effect free software. Saying that the customers own Bell/AT&T item X because they pay for phone service would imply to me that everyone should get a free phone, that anything using transistors should be free (remember where the initial work was done? :-)), etc. Anyone who thinks a product is maintained and enhanced 'for free' has an unrealistic view of the commercial world. Bob Halloran ========================================================================= UUCP: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh home ph: (201)251-7514 Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM evenings ET USPS: 19 Culver Ct, Old Bridge NJ 08857 Disclaimer: I am a contractor. Any opinions stated or implied are solely MINE, NOT my agency's, NOT my client's. Got it?! Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter Thompson
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (08/24/87)
In article <2232@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes: [ long list of references ] > .... > .... the gall of AT&T > claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was > developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, > specifically prohibited from being in the computer business.... an > awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own > Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the > mortal equivalent of public domain. There have been some replies to this, but I want to get down to basics. Regulated monopoly is a special arrangement between a private enterprise and the public. Its purpose is to gain the efficiencies of a single supplier, without allowing the supplier to restrict output and charge monopoly prices, and without establishing a government enterprise. A private enterprise is granted an exclusive franchise and regulated so that it can not charge monopoly prices. A private enterprise operating as a regulated monopoly is not a public enterprise, but an alternative to public enterprise. It is is owned by stockholders who are financially responsible for its mistakes and entitled to the rewards of its successes. It is managed by its own officers under the direction of a board appointed by its stockholders. Its operations are restricted only by the terms of its agreements with the governments and agencies that regulate it. Any inference that its assets are owned by anyone but its stockholders is purely imaginary. Disclaimer: I usually omit disclaimers, but that's the nicest thing I ever said publicly about my employer, and my employer may disagree. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
mjr@osiris.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (08/24/87)
AT&T owns UNIX because they have enough laywers that if you lined them all up end-to-end you could walk across their backs all the way to Mars. Supposing that you tried to institute legal proceedings: they could keep it tied up in court until hell freezes over, or the last IBM PC is melted down for scrap copper. Not only would they do that, but the cost of the lawyers would be passed on to the phone users of America. One might as well ask how it is that UCB owns UCB UNIX, that was paid for in part by DARPA, and is thus really owned by the taxpayers. One might as well ask why we fight a covert war with prime-time news coverage. One might even ask when people will understand the difference between MSDOS, and operating system, and Wordstar. The FSF is one possible solution, but I am not holding my breath. There are MINIX ports out there, XINU ports, etc, etc, etc. There are lots of 'C' and even BASIC compilers out there, so if you want to re-write BSD (please include shared memory) UNIX, I'll be happy to run it when you put it in the public domain. --mjr(); -- If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible. These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness... -Johnny Mnemonic
steve@acich.UUCP (Steve Westfall) (08/25/87)
> In article <2232@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > > > >. . . the gall of AT&T > >claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was > >developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, Since when does the money that you send to pay a bill remain your property??? Normally it is considered to be the property of the company whose bill you were paying. You owed them, right??? They provided you with some service? And yes, AT&T was a regulated monopoly. Their rates were set by governmental bodies, and that rate-fixing was the price that they paid for being a monopoly. They gave up the right to set their own prices. No one ever said that they had to go beyond that and donate all their profits to the public. > >specifically prohibited from being in the computer business. And they weren't in the computer business. But they did develop computer technology that could be used in their telecommunications business, like UNIX, which enabled them to handle the text processing for all their patent applications, and later was used for switching applications. You don't own UNIX any more than you own their switches. -- Steve Westfall Automated Concepts, Inc. - Chicago (312) 346-8640 UUCP Mail: {ihnp4|gargoyle}!acich!steve
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/29/87)
> ... Seems to me, right off hand, that an > awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own > Unix... It is quite possible that AT&T's regulated-monopoly status is the only reason why Unix ever made it to the outside world! Or don't you believe that having Unix all to oneself would be a competitive advantage? Under the old rules, AT&T was required to license useful technology to the rest of the world on reasonable terms. Not any more. I'm told there was a lot of internal debate before the release of System III, mostly along the lines of "do we really want to license our spiffiest software technology to our competitors?!?". Quit complaining, it could be a lot worse. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
kent@xanth.UUCP (08/30/87)
In article <1272@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In article <2232@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes: >[ long list of references ] >> .... >> .... the gall of AT&T >> claiming to "own" Unix(tm) really gets to me. At the time Unix was >> developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, >> specifically prohibited from being in the computer business.... an >> awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own >> Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the >> mortal equivalent of public domain. > >[...] >Regulated monopoly is a special arrangement between a private >enterprise and the public. Its purpose is to gain the efficiencies of >a single supplier, without allowing the supplier to restrict output and >charge monopoly prices, and without establishing a government >enterprise. A private enterprise is granted an exclusive franchise and >regulated so that it can not charge monopoly prices. OK, and we the people included in the regulations for AT&T, "you are in the phone business, not the computer business". > >A private enterprise operating as a regulated monopoly is not a public >enterprise, but an alternative to public enterprise. It is is owned by >stockholders who are financially responsible for its mistakes and >entitled to the rewards of its successes. As even a casual glance at the record would show, this may be true on paper, but has no relation whatever to fact. In fact, no matter how poorly managed, regulated monopolies have historically been guaranteed a specific level of return on investment, typically in the region of 15%. > It is managed by its own >officers under the direction of a board appointed by its stockholders. >Its operations are restricted only by the terms of its agreements with >the governments and agencies that regulate it. Any inference that its >assets are owned by anyone but its stockholders is purely imaginary. Again, the case here is rather special. AT&T developed UNIX "for internal use only", using monies derived from customer billings, at a time when they were forbidden by law to engage in the development of computer hardware or software for sale. Fine. They distributed UNIX to non-commercial users at cost of media, and got gobs of debugging and upgrade help. Again, all accomplished at phone company customer expense. Now, comes divestiture, and _instantly_, a company which had been involved, by law, in no development of hardware or software for sale has a $30,000 product on the market. Sure looks fishy to me. ;-) My point (I _must_ have one, right?) is that that product is still just fine for AT&T internal use, and any value it has in that regard is perfectly legitimate. However, the added commercial value derives from development work during a time when commercial software development work by AT&T was _illegal_, and, by normal rules of law, should not accrue to AT&T. Taking a look at who might be the next most likely beneficiary of this added value, the customers who, all unknowingly, bought and paid for it, sure look like the prime candidates. Since that is essentially the entire US populace, plus or minus a few phone-phobics, that is pretty much the equivalent of public domain. >Disclaimer: I usually omit disclaimers, but that's the nicest thing I >ever said publicly about my employer, and my employer may disagree. I'm sure they appreciate the support, considering how badly they have ripped off their customer base in this case, and how rich it is making them to own UNIX. > >M. B. Brilliant Marty >AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 >Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1 Not having an employer besides me, I guess one way or another I have to be responsible for what I say. Miracles never cease. Kent, the man from xanth.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/31/87)
> ...comes divestiture, and _instantly_, a company which had been > involved, by law, in no development of hardware or software > for sale has a $30,000 product on the market... You have the history slightly wrong, Kent. Unix was available to commercial outfits at scandalous prices well before divestiture, on the same theory as for educational users: "we developed this for our own use, since you want it you can have it, as is, don't call us if it breaks". What started with divestiture was the marketing effort. > My point (I _must_ have one, right?) is that that product is > still just fine for AT&T internal use, and any value it has > in that regard is perfectly legitimate. However, the added > commercial value derives from development work during a time > when commercial software development work by AT&T was _illegal_, > and, by normal rules of law, should not accrue to AT&T... The same can be said of almost any AT&T asset, however. The real question underlying all this is whether AT&T, the company, should inherit some of the assets of the Bell System, the defunct regulated monopoly. Many of those assets are of great value to a company which can market them freely, instead of being bound by the restrictions of regulation. Most of them were created using the Bell System's monopoly-derived money, many at a time when using them to compete in the open market would have brought the wrath of the government down on Bell instantly. Without those assets, AT&T would largely cease to exist. Think of it as the price we pay for the continued existence of Bell Labs. (Cripes, I never thought I'd find myself defending AT&T...!) -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (08/31/87)
In article <2303@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > In article <1272@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >In article <2232@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP writes: > >> ..... At the time Unix was > >> developed, WITH SUBSCRIBER FUNDS, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, > >> specifically prohibited from being in the computer business.... an > >> awfully good case could be made that the customers, NOT Ma Bell, own > >> Unix. Considering the AT&T customer base, that is pretty much the > >> mortal equivalent of public domain. > > > >[...] my answer was > >Regulated monopoly is a special arrangement between a private > >enterprise and the public.... > >.... A private enterprise is granted an exclusive franchise and > >regulated so that it can not charge monopoly prices. and kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) answers: > OK, and we the people included in the regulations for AT&T, > "you are in the phone business, not the computer business". That was the 1956 consent decree, the "Final Judgment" that was modified in the "Modified Final Judgment" (MFJ) that created Divestiture. I think the orginal idea was to keep AT&T from using its phone profits to enter the computer business. (As you see, I agree that a regulated monopoly is usually guaranteed a profit). If its purpose was to prevent AT&T from cheating its customers by misapplying its profits and falsifying its costs, and > ..... AT&T developed UNIX > "for internal use only", using monies derived from customer > billings, .... then using UNIX was probably the cheapest way to meet the needs of the phone business. In that case, UNIX was developed at a saving to the customers, not at their expense, and UNIX also cost less than a comparable competitor's product would. Thus AT&T is probably underpricing UNIX, not overpricing it, and you benefit from that. And if it was intended to prevent unfair competition by AT&T, the MFJ says that's not a problem now, so you benefit from AT&T's competition. > ... comes divestiture, and _instantly_, a company which had been > involved, by law, in no development of hardware or software > for sale has a $30,000 product on the market.... I think that's misleading. If you knew about all the incompetence inside AT&T before, during, and after divestiture, you could not believe it was all done for post-divestiture market dominance. I can't explain that without revealing "proprietary" information. > >Disclaimer: I usually omit disclaimers, but that's the nicest thing I > >ever said publicly about my employer, and my employer may disagree. > > I'm sure they appreciate the support.... I'm not sure they appreciate being defended on the grounds that they're too dumb to cheat. > .... considering how badly they > have ripped off their customer base in this case, and how rich > it is making them to own UNIX. I don't think UNIX(tm) is making AT&T rich. At best, it's offsetting the money we're losing in the computer hardware business. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
molly@killer.UUCP (09/03/87)
In article <8508@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > I'm told there was a > lot of internal debate before the release of System III, mostly along the > lines of "do we really want to license our spiffiest software technology > to our competitors?!?". Quit complaining, it could be a lot worse. I was a college student back then. We had a PDP-11/45 running System III and then one summer we got a System 4.0 tape from WECo. This is a creature that I've never seen since, nor ever even heard talked about. In fact, some times I wonder if it ever even existed. (I almost never put it on a resume since no one ever talks about it.) I can't imagine it being much worse than an entire release of an operating system being poofed into nothingness. Molly -- Molly Fredericks UUCP: { any place real }!ihnp4!killer!molly Disclaimer: Neither me, nor my cat, had anything to do with any of this "I love giving my cat a bath, except for all those hairs I get on my tongue" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
molly@killer.UUCP (09/03/87)
In article <2303@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > In article <1272@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > > > >A private enterprise operating as a regulated monopoly is not a public > >enterprise, but an alternative to public enterprise. > > In > fact, no matter how poorly managed, regulated monopolies > have historically been guaranteed a specific level of return > on investment, typically in the region of 15%. > I think Kent got that wrong. A regulated monopoly is not an alternative to a public enterprise, it is an alternative to total chaos. Could you imagine how things would be if every company had telephone lines strung all across America? A regulated monopoly is a deal between a private company and the public by which the public gets a service at a price they agree to (that's what public service commisions are for, along with their publicly elected/appointed commisioners) and the company gets to make money. Many companies have rates of return greater than 15%, especially ones in the technology sectors. What do you think Apple's rate of return is/was? A regulated monopoly has to listen not only to the stockholders, but on top of them, has a collection of public utilities regulators to keep happy. No one ever divested a company the size of AT&T. What would you rather have, MCI and Sprint, or $600 Unix tapes? Molly. -- The preceeding has been an unpaid political statement. I use AT&T because I can't stand the sound of all those pins dropping in the background. -- Molly Fredericks UUCP: { any place real }!ihnp4!killer!molly Disclaimer: Neither me, nor my cat, had anything to do with any of this "I love giving my cat a bath, except for all those hairs I get on my tongue" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (09/04/87)
In article <1461@killer.UUCP> molly@killer.UUCP (Molly Fredericks) writes: >No one ever divested a company the size of AT&T. Ever hear of a guy named "Judge Greene"? > What would you rather have, MCI and Sprint, or $600 Unix tapes? Stupid question! The $600 Unix tapes, of course! (I assume you're talking *source*.) Preferably v[89]. Now what was that stuff people were hinting at about AT&T dropping the ball and v6 was PD? And let's not forget the newspeakism of information being "secret", dispite many thousands of people, scattered throughout the world, knowing it. Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com Legalise 3800 Hz!
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (09/04/87)
In article <1459@killer.UUCP> molly@killer.UUCP (Molly Fredericks) writes: >In article <8508@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> I'm told there was a >> lot of internal debate before the release of System III, mostly along the >> lines of "do we really want to license our spiffiest software technology >> to our competitors?!?". Quit complaining, it could be a lot worse. Well, we get system V instead of v[89], right? >I was a college student back then. We had a PDP-11/45 running System III >and then one summer we got a System 4.0 tape from WECo. This is a creature >that I've never seen since, nor ever even heard talked about. That's odd, System 4.0 was supposed to be an internal-only release. It evolved into System V. Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) (09/18/87)
In article <1459@killer.UUCP> molly@killer.UUCP (Molly Fredericks) writes:
:I was a college student back then. We had a PDP-11/45 running System III
:and then one summer we got a System 4.0 tape from WECo. This is a creature
:that I've never seen since, nor ever even heard talked about. In fact, some
:times I wonder if it ever even existed.
4.0, of course, was midway between System III (internally
called 3.0), and System V (5.0). There was also a 4.1, which was the
3B20 version, and had real GBC-bound manuals instead of 8.5x11 Xerox.
I had just transferred into a new group, which needed someone to run
the snazzy new VAX 11/780 they'd ordered (with 4 Huge Megabytes of RAM!.)
It seems the supervisor hadn't thought to order software, and UNIX support
was being transferred out of Bell Laboratories into Western Electric.
WECo sold the operating systems, but hadn't started handling
documentation, and USG had stopped distributing documentation, so all I
got were 5 tapes labelled with highly revealing J-numbers. I had to
break into the WECo support group's computer to find out what
documentation existed and how to order it, but it wasn't tough.
sh: test: argument expected
(he rambles on about the good old days.)
About a year later we switched to 4.1BSD because we finally exceeded
the 4 MB barrier and needed paging. (Thanks to Dave Curry for advice
on getting past 4.1BSD's 6 MB limit.) We later got a under-the-table
early-beta version of 5.2p (thanks, Doris), and learned that we and
Summit had different ideas about what BIG was and how to get it, and
what slow was and how not to get it. (No, you can't
possibly run something that big on a VAX.) Eventually RAM got cheap
enough to buy 16 Meg. Meanwhile we were going to trade shows saying
"16 Meg is for Wimps!" about all the 68000-boxen and Gould and Pyramid,
while wishing we could port some of our graphics work back to 4.2BSD.
--
# Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs