richard@boingo.dec.com (Richard Wood) (03/30/89)
I'd like to bring up a discussion that is related to the now exhausted OSF topic. It deals with the reason that the OSF came into existence, and alot of the conflicts that people are seeing between the "old guard" and the new unix advocates. As we are all probably aware, Unix has been discovered. OSF has brought IBM, DEC and many other players into the arena in a way that proves that Unix is serious business. Why now? Many of these companies are doing very well without Unix, and are not known for their activity in the Unix space. What's so new? What's the motivation? I think we are all aware that Unix is not really the ideal operating system for many purposes. I usually characterize it as "expert friendly, novice hostile" when explaining it to new comers. It's hard to think of a commonly used operating system that provides fewer features to aid the novice. It will take a great deal of work before Unix is capable of addressing some market needs as well as already available proprietary operating systems. The obvious difference is that Unix has become "the standard". But what does this mean? Are we really to expect that non-technical customers are going to suddenly adapt to the bizarre nature of Unix? My point is that there are three markets for "unix" today. The first is the traditional USENET reader: the hacker/guru/wizard. We choose Unix because it's anarchistic, fun, or powerful. We are already comfortable with it, and just want more toys that don't get in our way. I suggest that most of us (not all!) prefer BSD, since it was designed without the taint of commercialism, and shows it. The second, and much larger market are the technical commercial customers. These are businesses that frequently choose Unix because their employees demand it. Or their market demands it. But it is still Unix that they want. They are usually asking for a standard, since they need to be secure about what they're buying. But they want "standard Unix." I suggest this is where the demand for System V came from, largely. The newest market is still tiny in comparison with what it is going to become, even though it is already starting to dwarf the "standard Unix" market. I'm referring to the people that want a "standard operating system" and don't really care what it looks like. They have no particular desire for Unix, and frequently don't know what they're getting themselves into. Most of the really huge deals coming down the pike are requesting this. Hacker's OS: Earth's Moon Standard Unix: Earth Standard OS: Sun, and going nova... It's this final market that got IBM and DEC involved. They realized that AT&T was quietly locking in the huge crowd by default, since there was no opposition. Recognizing that they couldn't stop the tide of customers rushing towards standards, they took the initiative. Two points come out of this: first, if the OSF members _really_ want some of those big bids, they'd better make OSFix real. Otherwise AT&T still wins by default. That means they aren't doing this just to confuse the market, but to win the market. Second point: it shows the magnitude of the deal AT&T was trying to swing, and exposes the stakes. AT&T was trying to maneuver Unix into that big-win position, and keep it under direct control at the same time. The advent of OSF means AT&T over played their hand, or played it too soon. So what happens to "Unix"? I can't imagine that the system that the wizards and gurus are so content with will remain unaltered under the imposing demands of the largest single market the industry has ever produced. Those forces will soon have "Unix" moving towards a more stable, controlled environment. I can't see how it's going to get there without losing alot of what "we" want from it. Perhaps it's time to split the market in two. Let the OSFix people go off into the real world with the AT&T folks and fight it out there. Whatever emerges triumphant will probably be the dominant OS for the next few decades. But it won't be our Unix anymore. (Perhaps we'll converge around GNUix at about the same time). At the same time, the really guru's OS should fork off and center around what the technical desires are. Keep it novice-hostile on purpose, to differentiate it from OSFix/SysVr5+. Otherwise we'll always be groaning about how the big fellows are screwing up our system: we should realize that they don't really want _Unix_ and we don't really want what they're making. Is there any way this can be done "officially", so the two portions of the family tree don't diverge to far? We'll lose our income-producing ability if our Unix skills no longer match what the world wants. I hope this doesn't seem _too_ biased from a DEC perspective. I can guarantee it has little to do with my official functions, and nothing to do with what Digital tells me about. It's solely the result of my concern that Unix's success will destroy what I came to appreciate it for. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should go without saying that I'm not speaking as an official representative of DEC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood ! Software Services, San Francisco ! Digital Equipment Corporation ===============================================================================