otts@tfsg.UUCP (Chuck Otts) (07/31/90)
As I read in ``UNIX Review'', August 1990, that Motorola Inc. has
upgraded their membership in UNIX International (UI) to principal
member, I'm curious if there is a membership list for the two
organizations with members current status?
We here at TRW are awaiting, like most the world, some type of movement
from one or both organizations (growth of SVR4, status of OSF/1, etc.)
so a choice can be made (direction in the 90's). Not sure if a
membership list is useful but figured it couldn't hurt.
Along the same lines.
Does anybody have any information or insight into the European
Commission and their reported (UNIX Today!, June (something) 1990)
choice by year-end to pick either OSF or UI? What is this commission
and how much clot do they have in the European community? Could their
choice provide direction for other organizations? Is this decision worth
watching?
Thanks for the response.
Chuck Otts - TRW System Integration Group
UUCP: {uunet}!tfsg!otts
Voice: (703) 802-1958davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA (David Collier-Brown) (08/02/90)
otts@tfsg.UUCP (Chuck Otts) writes: >We here at TRW are awaiting, like most the world, some type of movement >from one or both organizations (growth of SVR4, status of OSF/1, etc.) >so a choice can be made (direction in the 90's). Not sure if a >membership list is useful but figured it couldn't hurt. If you are waiting, you've already done what at least one vendor wants. It's true that they're a member of OSF, but I suspect they have colleagues who are part of UI. Be warned: the dichotomy is deliberate, and is strongly approved of by marketers of proprietary software who are overreacting to the spectre of someone else's operating system running on their precious hardware (:-)). You can 1) pick and chose technology on its own merits, and know that vendors will be forced to support it if really is worthwhile (ie, the normal pre-war assumption) 2) apply political/purchasing pressure on the two antagonists to force them into bed together. This is not a discussion of standards: its a discussion about market power. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | "And the next 8 man-months came up like CANADA. 416-223-8968 | thunder across the bay" --david kipling
terry@network.admin.ists.ca (Terry Lim) (08/09/90)
In article <13394@yunexus.YorkU.CA> davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA (David Collier-Brown) writes: > Be warned: the dichotomy is deliberate, and is strongly approved >of by marketers of proprietary software who are overreacting to the >spectre of someone else's operating system running on their precious >hardware (:-)). > You can > 1) pick and chose technology on its own merits, and know that > vendors will be forced to support it if really is worthwhile > (ie, the normal pre-war assumption) As Humpty Dumpty would say, the words "merits" and "worthwhile" mean just what one chooses here, especially since Dave and I are in agreement that it's a market, rather than a technical, issue. But then the market is exactly what elevates technical gimmickry to "technology". I can hear the angry mob in the background, but it is my opinion that the IBM PC was a classic case of technology which "made it" for much more than reasons of technical superiority over its competitors. > 2) apply political/purchasing pressure on the two antagonists > to force them into bed together. Sort of. Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be large/loud enough to make a jot of difference. As they say in Africa, when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. What we have to do (somehow!) is to adjust the balance of power so that the process becomes consumer- rather than producer- driven. This means gravitating away from market forces toward "purely technical" natural selectors for technological evolution. > This is not a discussion of standards: its a discussion about >market power. Not so bad in itself, provided marketing boards stop masquerading as standards bodies. As it stands, vendors drive standards which drive Fortune 500/govt/big spenders which drive trends which drive small spenders. All of which means that the original poster's question is still good: Whom do we watch and follow? Terry Lim (not the answer to the question!) terry@ists.ists.ca
hl.rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (HL Rogers) (08/11/90)
[...] >Sort of. Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be >large/loud enough to make a jot of difference. As they say in Africa, [...] >Whom do we watch and follow? > I have been particular impressed by the actions of two groups who seem to have the courage to take a stand. One is the group of ISVs and User Councils attached to X/Open, who have taken a position on the GUI question. Another is the European Commission, who seems to be making the tough decisions and moving forward with their selections for standards used for national procurements. They haven't made a whole *lot* of progress, mind you, but seem more than willing to do so. -- HL Rogers (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM) Me? Speak for my company?? HA! "Call 202/653-1800 for a good time!" - John Matrow, 1989
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (08/11/90)
>Sort of. Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be >large/loud enough to make a jot of difference. As they say in Africa, >when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. What we have >to do (somehow!) is to adjust the balance of power so that the process >becomes consumer- rather than producer- driven. This means gravitating >away from market forces toward "purely technical" natural selectors for >technological evolution. This assumes that "purely technical" natural selectors will automatically choose what all the consumers want. The trouble is that it's not clear that all customers want the *same* thing in all cases, and that the folks making the "purely technical" selections happen to agree with the consumers. I'm extremely loath to make either of those assumptions....