Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA (01/24/91)
Submitted-by: Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA
I am writing a small article which touches on recent evolution in Unix
standards, but can't seem to find some information that it would be nice to
include. I would appreciate it if some kind soul who is up on all of this
could please shed a little light on this for me.
Questions:
1.AT&T, Sun and Microsoft banded together in the late 80's to create System V.4
as the merge of the System V.3, SunOS, and Xenix strains of Unix.
What was the duration of the software development phase, and what were the
release dates of System V.4 on each significant platform?
2.Similarly, OSF/1 is "currently under development" but is having some problems
getting off the ground. I believe IBM has pulled out of the effort to
develop the operating system, in favour of AIX which works. What are the
dates of: 1.the formation of OSF
2.the development phase of the OSF/1 operating system
(is it still under development, or has it been abandoned
completely after the pull out by Big Blue?)
What are the Unix roots of the OSF/1 operating system? i.e. was it
developed from System V.2, or Mach from Carnegie Mellon U?
3.What is the date of the formation of UI (Unix International)?
4.What are the Unix roots of AIX? i.e. was it developed from System V.2 or
Mach? What are its advantages and disadvantages relative to other
strains of Unix?
3.What are the Unix roots of Mach? Why did Carnagie Melon develop it? What
are its advantages and disadvantages relative to other strains of Unix?
(i.e. why did Next (and possibly IBM?) choose Mach over BSD or some
other flavour of Unix?)
4.Is there a competition between System V.4 and OSF/1, in the sense that one
will be chosen as the ANSI standard Unix, or are they both sufficiently
conformant to current ANSI/POSIX standards, that this is not an issue:
that the competition is strictly in the marketplace?
I realise this is a lot to ask, but I can't find this information in any of
our locally available references. RTFM responses, or references to articles
in recent publications welcome.
with thanks in anticipation,
Kevin Broekhoven Computing Centre
applications programmer Queens University K7L-3N6 (Canada)
Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN@QUCDN IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9)
X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA Bell: (613) 545-2235 fax: 545-6798
Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 84peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) (01/30/91)
Submitted-by: peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) In article <17405@cs.utexas.edu> Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA writes: >Submitted-by: Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA > >I am writing a small article which touches on recent evolution in Unix >standards, but can't seem to find some information that it would be nice to >include. I would appreciate it if some kind soul who is up on all of this >could please shed a little light on this for me. > Much of what you ask is in Libes&Ressler, Life with UNIX, Prentice Hall 1989. For the stuff on Mach, I suggest the Summer 1986 (Atlanta) USENIX Proceedings or the Proceedings of the USENIX Mach Workshop last Autumn. OSF was created in May 1989; UI (in response) in August/September 1989. There are two OSF papers and a Mach paper in the USENIX Proceedings for Dallas (last week). P -- The difference between practice and theory in practice is always greater than the difference between practice and theory in theory. Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 89
sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) (02/05/91)
Submitted-by: sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) In article <17405@cs.utexas.edu>, Kevin.N.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA writes: > 2.Similarly, OSF/1 is "currently under development" but is having some problems > getting off the ground. I believe IBM has pulled out of the effort to > develop the operating system, in favour of AIX which works. What are the > dates of: 1.the formation of OSF > 2.the development phase of the OSF/1 operating system > (is it still under development, or has it been abandoned > completely after the pull out by Big Blue?) > What are the Unix roots of the OSF/1 operating system? i.e. was it > developed from System V.2, or Mach from Carnegie Mellon U? OSF/1 1.0 was released for general distribution on December 7 1990. There are no problems that I know of that has prevented it getting off the ground and I was one of the development team. In fact the project slipped only 2 or 3 weeks from its original ship date which is pretty impressive for a project of that magnitude I think. At the general release announcement the sponsors endorsed OSF/1 and many (including IBM) announced that they would be using OSF/1 as part of their operating system technology. The final IBM product could well be called AIX but that is their perogative and a marketing decision I would think. To question 1, OSF, the company, was formed in May 1988. As I said, OSF/1 has already shipped and your information about IBM is incorrect. OSF/1, simplistically, is the integration of Mach 2.5 microkernel and BSD 4.4 but there has been a significant contribution of technology from various sources, IBM, Mentat, Secureware, Encore, to name a few (I apologise to those I have ommited), and of course OSFs own development group. There is a small amount of AT&T System V.2 code in the kernel but not much and it is well isolated. > 4.Is there a competition between System V.4 and OSF/1, in the sense that one > will be chosen as the ANSI standard Unix, or are they both sufficiently > conformant to current ANSI/POSIX standards, that this is not an issue: > that the competition is strictly in the marketplace? As far as I am concerned there is no competition. Both systems support the standard interfaces (POSIX, FIPS, XPG3, ANSI-C, etc) so with respect to strictly conforming application portability the two systems should be identical. Obviously there are other differences, for example in the area of multiprocessor support, threads, dynamic configuration, etc but I will stick my neck out and guess that neither system will be "chosen" by any standards body as the one and only true system. The current status is that OSF/1 1.1 is already under development and likely to be available sometime in the next 12 months or so, I don't know the exact ship date. The system today has already been ported to more that 8 different architectures, including a MIPS R2000, National Semi 32532, Motorola 68030, Intel 80386 and I860, Fairchild clipper and more, I forget them all. DISCLAIMER: This is not an official statement from OSF. Simon Patience Open Software Foundation Phone: +33-76-63-48-72 Research Institute FAX: +33-76-51-05-32 2 Avenue De Vignate Email: sp@gr.osf.org 38610 Gieres, France uunet!gr.osf.org!sp Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 103
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (02/06/91)
Submitted-by: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes, among explanations of OSF history and status, that: > OSF/1, simplistically, is the integration of Mach 2.5 microkernel and > BSD 4.4... This is incorrect on two counts. First, Mach 2.5 is not a "microkernel" implementation--it still contains conventional kernel functions. The "microkernel" version of Mach is 3.0. (However, it *is* correct that OSF/1 is based on the non-"micro"kernel 2.5.) Second, OSF/1 could not have integrated BSD 4.4, because BSD 4.4 is not done yet--at least not accor- ding to the folks at Berkeley! Probably what is meant here is that OSF/1 has incorporated some of the Berkeley "Reno" code, Reno being the name attached to a pre-4.4 release of code intended for developers who want to try it out and shake out the bugs. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools. Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 108
sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) (02/07/91)
Submitted-by: sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) In article <17653@cs.utexas.edu>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes, among explanations of OSF > history and status, that: > > > OSF/1, simplistically, is the integration of Mach 2.5 microkernel and > > BSD 4.4... > > This is incorrect on two counts. First, Mach 2.5 is not a "microkernel" > implementation--it still contains conventional kernel functions. By this statement I was trying to imply that it was only the microkernel part of the Mach 2.5 distribution that was used and not the Unix part (although for the pedants, I'm sure a line or two slipped in). In fact the Mach 3.0 kernel was based on the 2.5 "microkernel" and only the IPC interfaces changed significantly (although again I'm sure other changes have been made, sigh, the things you have to do to protect against flames) > Second, OSF/1 could not have > integrated BSD 4.4, because BSD 4.4 is not done yet--at least not accor- > ding to the folks at Berkeley! Probably what is meant here is that OSF/1 > has incorporated some of the Berkeley "Reno" code, Reno being the name > attached to a pre-4.4 release of code intended for developers who want to > try it out and shake out the bugs. Well, I did say *simplistically*. In fact OSF and Berkeley worked closely sharing what was to become 4.3 Reno and will become 4.4. Bugs found and fixed at OSF will be in 4.4 and vice versa. If you had wanted a technically precise and accurate description then you can always attend the OSF/1 internals course. Simon. Simon Patience Open Software Foundation Phone: +33-76-63-48-72 Research Institute FAX: +33-76-51-05-32 2 Avenue De Vignate Email: sp@gr.osf.org 38610 Gieres, France uunet!gr.osf.org!sp Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 115
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (02/11/91)
Submitted-by: Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips)
>>>>> On 4 Feb 91 16:32:06 GMT, sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) said:
Simon> OSF/1 1.0 was released for general distribution on December 7 1990.
The more important date will be when end users can buy OSF/1 and its
documentation for their machines, IMHO. The most optimistic rumor I've
heard is third quarter `91 for shipment to end users, and then only for a
few platforms.
Don't get me wrong. I welcome the competition between USL and OSF. I'm
confident *both* OSs will benefit as a result. I wish both camps success.
As a developer of applications that must run on both SVr4 and OSF/1 (when
it ships to end users), I've looked all over for specific information on
the C language interface to OSF/1 in general and system calls in
particular. The only books I can find on OSF are about Motif, nothing on
the operating system itself. I'd *like* to take advantage of what OSF/1
offers, but without documentation, this is impossible. How about sections
1-8 of the man pages for OSF/1? Where can I buy them? Telling me it will
be POSIX compliant is only a partial answer.
Disclaimer: Not a spokesman, etc.
--
Chuck Phillips MS440
NCR Microelectronics chuck.phillips%ftcollins.ncr.com
2001 Danfield Ct.
Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 ...uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp
Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 122sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) (02/14/91)
Submitted-by: sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) In article <17837@cs.utexas.edu>, Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) writes: > As a developer of applications that must run on both SVr4 and OSF/1 (when > it ships to end users), I've looked all over for specific information on > the C language interface to OSF/1 in general and system calls in > particular. The only books I can find on OSF are about Motif, nothing on > the operating system itself. I'd *like* to take advantage of what OSF/1 > offers, but without documentation, this is impossible. How about sections > 1-8 of the man pages for OSF/1? Where can I buy them? Telling me it will > be POSIX compliant is only a partial answer. What you want is the Operating System Programming Interfaces Volume of the AES (Application Environment Specification). This is published by Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-043522-8. You should be able to order this from any reputable bookshop if they don't already have it. It has been available for some time but I guess it has taken time for the news to leak out. These are not all the interfaces present in OSF/1 but they are the ones you should use if you want to write a portable application. Simon. Simon Patience Open Software Foundation Phone: +33-76-63-48-72 Research Institute FAX: +33-76-51-05-32 2 Avenue De Vignate Email: sp@gr.osf.org 38610 Gieres, France uunet!gr.osf.org!sp Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 124
lwa@skeptic.osf.org (Larry Allen) (02/14/91)
Submitted-by: lwa@skeptic.osf.org (Larry Allen) Speaking not quite authoritatively, but as a member of the OSF/1 development team: Most OSF/1 documentation is available without a source code license. The "quick-print copies" - exactly what we shipped on the tape - can be purchased right now from OSF-Direct. Call 617-621-7300 and ask to purchase an OSF/1 documentation set. Prentice Hall versions of several of the manuals will be available in several months. I think OSF-Direct can probably help with information on the printed books, or talk to your Prentice-Hall salesman... I should also mention that the OS AES (the Applications Environment Specification, which is the application programming interface recommended for use by portable applications, guaranteed to be preserved across multiple releases, etc.) is printed by Prentice Hall and is currently available in better computer bookstores everywhere :^) It's called the Application Environment Specification Operating System Programming Interfaces Volume -Larry Allen Open Software Foundation Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 125