chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (01/23/88)
In article <7907@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >In article <151@ateng.UUCP> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >> >>You've got to be kidding. Sun couldn't "coerce" AT&T with a nuke. > >Sun is the Big Gorrilla is Unix, folks. Whatever they do is a de-facto >standard, and AT&T is, among other things, accepting that standard. I don't quite believe that Sun's actions define a de-facto standard. For example: NeWS. X is the de-facto standard, and Display Postscript is on the horizon; NeWS never was more than a stopgap. Sun was the loser until it agreed to support X. (The decision to merge X and NeWS was even dumber, in my opinion, than the decision to invent NeWS. Datamation's definition of "kludge" -- "an ill- assorted collection of poorly matching parts, forming a distressing whole" -- applies quite nicely to the X-NeWS merge. But I digress.) >Sun may not have "coerced" AT&T into unsing their software, using >their hardware architecture, and blessing it all as standard, but >market reality has. I don't quite see the point, here. You're saying that AT&T's agreement to merge SunOS features into SysV is an admission of marketing weakness, while Sun's having slavishly provided every feature described in the SVID is marketing savvy? I don't quite see it that way. Sun and AT&T recognize that as long as the UNIX market is divided into two camps, each with its own user and system interfaces, UNIX will never become as overwhelmingly popular as they would like. So they are working together for the purpose of competing in a single (larger) market. -- Chip Salzenberg UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip" A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret. "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (01/24/88)
In article <163@ateng.UUCP>, chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > I don't quite believe that Sun's actions define a de-facto standard. For > example: NeWS. X is the de-facto standard, and Display Postscript is on > the horizon; NeWS never was more than a stopgap. Sun was the loser until > it agreed to support X. Yes is X is in current vogue. I don't agree that NeWS has lost, quite the contrary, two major forces have source licenses : 1) AT&T 2) Microsoft There are others (such as Silicon Graphics, Whitechapel, Acorn, Celerity, Ridge, Alliant...to name a few - also alot of universities) but these two pose potentially terminal problems for X. NeWS has a lot of backers...I think X has as many or more. Having read various evaluations (such as one from the University of London) they seem to sing the same tune : look for X for the next few years to be prominent, but the long term is NeWS or a NeWS-like product. A version of 80386 NeWS will emerge from Uniforum. > (The decision to merge X and NeWS was even dumber, in my opinion, than the > decision to invent NeWS. Datamation's definition of "kludge" -- "an ill- > assorted collection of poorly matching parts, forming a distressing whole" > -- applies quite nicely to the X-NeWS merge. But I digress.) I think you are completely wrong on this one. A NeWS/X platform provides the best of two worlds. Further it has convinced me that NeWS is a much more powerful paradigm...it is capable of emulating X altogether (the reverse is probably not possible - it is doubtful that X could provide emulation of NeWS - I think this is one of many types of acid tests). AT&T has bought into this NeWS/X approach as have a large number of other companies. > Sun and AT&T recognize that as long as the UNIX market is divided into two > camps, each with its own user and system interfaces, UNIX will never become > as overwhelmingly popular as they would like. So they are working together I think we will be seeing a decent Unix standard emerging. I suspect that between Sun 386, Sun 3/60, NeXT Machines and Apple A/UX Mac II ...we may have see Unix furthered by quite a bit more than you think.
chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (01/26/88)
In article <1625@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >Yes is X is in current vogue. I don't agree that NeWS has lost, quite the >contrary, two major forces have source licenses : > 1) AT&T > 2) Microsoft >There are others... Do you think that everyone with a NeWS source license will sell it and support it? That isn't a sure bet. >look for X for the next few years to be prominent, but the long term is >NeWS or a NeWS-like product. NeWS-like product? Sounds like Display Postscript to me. I (Chip Salzenberg) wrote: >> (The decision to merge X and NeWS was even dumber, in my opinion, than the >> decision to invent NeWS. Datamation's definition of "kludge" -- "an ill- >> assorted collection of poorly matching parts, forming a distressing whole" >> -- applies quite nicely to the X-NeWS merge. But I digress.) Charles Diztel comments: >I think you are completely wrong on this one. A NeWS/X platform provides >the best of two worlds. I didn't say that it would be a bad environment to work in, but that the merge itself is a kludge. NeWS and X are so large, and their world views so different, that any combination of the two cannot be pretty -- at least on the inside, where bugs and bug fixes and upgrades take place. >I think we will be seeing a decent Unix standard emerging. I suspect >that between Sun 386, Sun 3/60, NeXT Machines and Apple A/UX Mac II >...we may have see Unix furthered by quite a bit more than you think. (Hark! a voice in the wilderness:) "Why, oh why, does everyone forget Xenix?" If I remember correctly, Xenix has the largest installed base of CPU's (not users, mind you) running any flavor of UN*X. -- Chip Salzenberg UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip" A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret. "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (01/28/88)
In article <167@ateng.UUCP>, chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > In article <1625@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: > >Yes is X is in current vogue. I don't agree that NeWS has lost, quite the > >contrary, two major forces have source licenses : > > 1) AT&T > > 2) Microsoft > >There are others... > Do you think that everyone with a NeWS source license will sell it and > support it? That isn't a sure bet. > Your right it isn't a sure bet. But I think I would bet on NeWS as being around quite a bit longer than X. > >look for X for the next few years to be prominent, but the long term is > >NeWS or a NeWS-like product. > > NeWS-like product? Sounds like Display Postscript to me. No!!!!! Display Postscript is an uninspiring product... Further Display Postscript can't be compared to X or NeWS. NeWS and X are networkable, multi-tasking, object-oriented window systems. Display Postscript is not a window manager -- from what I have read -- they use the native window system of the machine they sit on. DP doesn't understand networking or multi-tasking. No. What I expect is further extensions to NeWS (3D ??). > I didn't say that it would be a bad environment to work in, but that the > merge itself is a kludge. NeWS and X are so large, and their world views > so different, that any combination of the two cannot be pretty -- at least > on the inside, where bugs and bug fixes and upgrades take place. Perhaps you are right we have no way of knowing at this point. Somehow you manage to avoid admitting that X is not powerful enough to emulate NeWS - which was one of my main points. NeWS is capable of this type of emulation (of X). > (Hark! a voice in the wilderness:) > "Why, oh why, does everyone forget Xenix?" Mea culpa.
sxm@philabs.Philips.Com (Sandeep Mehta) (01/28/88)
In article <10495@jade.BBN.COM> mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) writes: > >shared core. Robin Schaufler's talk at the X11 Conference gave a good overview ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >-- > Matt Landau Waiting for a flash of enlightenment > mlandau@bbn.com in all this blood and thunder Isn't that Robert Scheifler ? sandeep -- Sandeep Mehta Robotics & Flexible Automation UUCP: uunet!philabs!sxm Philips Laboratories ARPA: sxm@philabs.philips.com
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (01/30/88)
> >shared core. Robin Schaufler's talk at the X11 Conference gave a good > > overview > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Isn't that Robert Scheifler ? No. Robin Schaufler works at Sun on the X.11/NeWS software. Robert Scheifler works at MIT (I presume) on the X.11 software from MIT (or the Consortium, whichever of the two distributes it). The names may look a bit similar and have the same initials, but they are two different people. Robin is the one who talked about the X.11/NeWS server design. Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com