page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (05/19/88)
Is the recent "hamilton group" announcement being discussed anywhere on USENET? I'm interested in the opinions out there. Executive Summary: ATT & Sun (and UNISYS and Xerox I think) are building "the next standard UNIX" ... a number of vendors (DEC, IBM, Apollo, HP, Seimens, Bull, and some others) form their OWN group called the Open Software Foundation to build a different UNIX (based on AIX so I heard), to supposedly come with less restrictions than ATT's version. Where's RMS and GNU when you need 'em? :-) ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (05/20/88)
In article <7147@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Is the recent "hamilton group" announcement being discussed anywhere >on USENET? I'm interested in the opinions out there. I seem to recall there was some (very light) discussion in comp.arch a few weeks ago but my USENET memory is even shorter than the 6-month limit ;-). >Executive Summary: ATT & Sun (and UNISYS and Xerox I think) are >building "the next standard UNIX" ... a number of vendors (DEC, IBM, >Apollo, HP, Seimens, Bull, and some others) form their OWN group >called the Open Software Foundation to build a different UNIX (based >on AIX so I heard), to supposedly come with less restrictions than >ATT's version. I attended a Seminar yesterday put on by DEC at their Application Center for Technology (one of 17 all over NA and Europe). Jim Isaak was there and spoke about the OSF. I shall do my best here to present some tidbits but I hope readers out there who are more active in this field will add to this. The OSF has a formation committee consisting of Dr. Lynn Conway (UMich) Prof. M. Dertouzos (MIT) Dean James F. Gibbons (Stanford) Dr. Gilles Kahn (INRA-Sofia Initopolis-France) Prof. Roger Needham (Cambridge) Dr. Raj Reddy (CMU) Prof. George Tubin (UCB) A board of directors has been set up consisting of John Doyle (VP - HP) as Chairman Don McInnis (VP - DEC) Mike Guttman (Apollo) George Lepicard (Director - Groupe Bull) Berhard Wolpker (President - Nixdorf) Peter Schoveider (Director - IBM) Henry Krouse (VP - DEC) as Interim President Okay...The objectives of OSF are to push for Open Systems (not to be confused with COS - they are into the Networking OSI model and stuff like that and OSF expects to work with them closely). They will work and make available industry standards, solicit inputs and technology, use a vendor-neutral (?) decision process, give equal and early access to specs and development and do some research as well. They expect to work with established Standarad Organizations, OSF members, Universities and Res. Orgn, and issue Newsletters, Spec Docs, Source Code (wow!), and work on sublicensing rights. According to the info that was presented at the seminar, they have already been incorporated in may '88, and have an initial funding committment of $50-60 Million. Eventually they hope to make it self-supporting. They will be starting off with POSIX as Level Zero Specs and kick off from there. Please no flames, apologies if there are any names spelled incorrectly, Perhaps some of the net readers will have more to add/correct (jsq ?) >Where's RMS and GNU when you need 'em? :-) Yeah! If OSF wants something truly open - how about GNU? >Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page -- sharan kalwani, vax facility, mcf, 110 east warren avenue, detroit mi 48201 usenet : ...!{uunet!umix, pur-ee!iuvax, ucbvax!mtxinu, ihnp4!mibte}!mcf!shan internet: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu shan@mcf.uucp dec enet: decwrl::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan" fax: (313) 831-8714
adam@hyper.lap.upenn.edu (Adam Feigin) (05/24/88)
In article <7147@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Is the recent "hamilton group" announcement being discussed anywhere >on USENET? I'm interested in the opinions out there. >.........mucho deleto >Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page We (Apollo Sites) have just received some information about the OSF and the 'Future of Unix'. I don't know if any of the other vendors of the OSF sent letters to their customers, so I'll quote briefly.... "To help the foundation deliver implementations of the OSF/AE specifications more quickly, sponsors of the foundation have offered a number of technologies including: Network Computing System (tm) (NCS) from Apollo, National language Support from HP, X Window System toolkits from DEC, core system technology from advanced OS development work from IBM, UNIX system-based multiprocessor architecture from Groupe Bull, OSI protocol support from Siemens and relational database technology from Nixdorf. This willingness of vendors to offer technology illustrates the strength of open systems. in defining OSF/AE specifications, the foundation can leverage the R&D investment and skills of many companies to develop the best possible system." Its a 5 page document, so I can't very well give you all the details. If you're really interested., you can call the OSF at (617) 250-0035 (after July 16, call (508) 250-0035) ) Many of the features of OSF/AE are already incorporated within current Apollo products, including: a distributed filesystem, (Apollo has always had this, while NFS was just a twinkle in someone's eye !!!) dynamic linking, shared libraries, and mapped files. Hope this is of help. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARPAnet: {root,adam}@{hyper,apollo}.lap.upenn.edu UUCP: {harvard,decwrl,rutgers,ihnp4}!super.upenn.edu!hyper.lap.upenn.edu!adam Adam Feigin Network Administrator Language Analysis Project University of Pennsylvania -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (05/25/88)
In article <233@mcf.UUCP> shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) writes: >They will work and make available industry standards, solicit >inputs and technology, use a vendor-neutral (?) decision process, >give equal and early access to specs and development and do some >research as well. They expect to work with established Standarad >Organizations, OSF members, Universities and Res. Orgn, and issue >Newsletters, Spec Docs, Source Code (wow!), and work on >sublicensing rights. Somehow I don't think we will ever see this happen. This is all just a smokescreen. In fact, it is already having an effect. I just finished speaking with a hardware vendor this evening and spoke with a software vendor a day or two ago on UNIX-related matters. Both told me that they are either changing direction or revisiting policy due to this action! It is all creating confussion, not only for the end user community, who know nothing but what they read in the trade rags, but also for those vendors in the middle: the third world vendors, who are looking to UNIX for their business. The end user community will read this nonsense and immediately head for the safe, steady familiar shores of IBM OS/2. That is the intention here. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up to IBM's marketing ploy. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (05/27/88)
In article <3248@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > ... Both told > me that they are either changing direction or revisiting policy due to > this action! > > It is all creating confussion, not only for the end user community, > who know nothing but what they read in the trade rags, but also for those > vendors in the middle: the third world vendors, who are looking to UNIX > for their business. The end user community will read this nonsense and > immediately head for the safe, steady familiar shores of IBM OS/2. That > is the intention here. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up to > IBM's marketing ploy. > That may be a part of it... I can see IBM wishing to tie up the >single- user< OS market with OS/2... but it is a >single-user< multi-tasking system. UNIX is inherently a multi-user system, and as such, can provide more bang for the buck. With OS/2, you still need to have >1 cpu per user. Unix permits >1 user per cpu, a decided advantage. I was even able to convince our accountant, a firm devotee of Novell nets, of the truth of this statement, and anyone who looks at the bottom line will see this is true. I agree, the probable reason for IBM's commitment here is the creation of more FUD, and the hope of heading off ATT/Sun/Microsoft (don't forget, Microsoft has a stake in >both< sides of this issue) from consolidating to command the 80386 business machine OS market. OS/2 is an incomplete product, and it will be 3 or 4 years before it even approaches the maturity and power of UNIX. For those who read between the trades, there is currently no contest. Watch, though, for the new Blunix (a good name for it, no? Just coined it myself) to have a real solid connectivity to OS/2... if that were to happen, I'd consider it myself... in four or five years! -- Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Zen Community of New York {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz Yonkers, NY, USA 10701-2509 {sun}!hoptoad/ "Opinions? What opinions? These are >facts<!!"
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (05/27/88)
That's interesting, people think IBM's interest in Unix relates to its PCs. IBM has a total market of around $2B on PCs (nothing to sneeze at but...) and a total gross market of about $60B, much of that in mainframes running MVS. My thinking is that although there's certainly some interest and thinking on the PC side it's loss of market leadership in the mainframe side that would be motivating IBM in general. An IBM mainframe is an awesome thing for certain types of applications (particularly huge data bases) but that alone would probably not keep them afloat (how many Mastercards or JC Penney's are there in the world? And they won't change for a long time to come for various reasons, software investment being a major one, I heard JC Penney's had something like 20 3081's in the room a few years back and still couldn't keep up with the sort/merge's.) A lot of that mainframe market is being threatened by the new super-minis in a serious way (ie. if a 10 MIPs 3081 with 3MB/sec channels [~$6M] was good enough for your needs three years ago how much have you *really* grown that you can't do the same thing on a current under $1M super-mini? Is a 3090/600E a bit overblown for your needs today? is it worth putting up with MVS anymore?) Of course, most of that concern at the moment is doubtless in the govt market (Federal Systems) I would imagine (that sentence reads strangely, I'll leave it tho.) One area they seem to have fallen flat is first the 43xx and now the 9370, there really isn't much mid-range to their product line anymore (System/36 and 38 excepted, but that line is aging real fast, I know less about it so I'll stop there.) I guess all I'm trying to say is that if you find the above rather complicated and full of stuff you don't usually think about or are aware of I'd say to stay away from the IBM speculating business, and I'm sure the above remarks are seriously incomplete in many respects, such as looking at what divisions of IBM are doing what as they act rather autonomously. -Barry Shein, Boston University
lynn@engr.uky.edu (H. Lynn Tilley) (05/28/88)
> >Both told me that they are either changing direction or revisiting >policy due to this action! > I was kind of suprised to be asked about OSF by a vendor today myself. Their response seemed to be very much like Microsoft's in that, if it becomes a standard, they will support it. They are clearly staying out of the fight and watching what happens. > >The end user community will read this nonsense and >immediately head for the safe, steady familiar shores of IBM OS/2. That >is the intention here. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up to >IBM's marketing ploy. > Lets not get carried away here. I don't think that you can lay this entirely at IBM's doorstep. Digital and HP obviously played a large part in it also. One of the things that I heard was that AT&T was asked to join and DONATE Unix sysVr3. When AT&T turned the offer down (something to do with Dec being unwilling to put VMS into the pot -- again something that I heard in passing) everyone in the group licensed AIX from IBM. It seems alittle ironic that the companies that have the most to loose from the arrival at a standard operating system are the ones that are forming this group. I agree with you in that this seems largely to be a marketing ploy. The thing that I can't figure out is why Digital, HP and Apollo would agree to work the kinks out of AIX for IBM and on top of that, fund the operation. I don't think that people are going to flock too Microsoft's OS/2 though. It requires too much hardware and has far to little software to attract people. The thing that propelled DOS (and still does for that matter) is applications software. I would hate to have to buy the extended/enhanced whiz-bang version of OS/2 at $800/copy (I think this is right, might be more) and find out that due to lack of applications, etc. that I could have gotten by with an $89 version of DOS. -- | Henry L. Tilley Center for Robotics and Manufacturing Systems | University of Kentucky INTERNET: lynn@engr.uky.edu V Voice (606)257-6262 UUCP: {cbosgd|uunet}!ukma!ukecc!lynn O Opinions, mine! Facts, ? BITNET: lynn%engr.uky.edu@ukma.bitnet