merlyn@hogpc.UUCP (S.HUMPHREY) (05/29/84)
To clear up some incorrect information about AT&T's 3B*2: As correctly stated already, the basic or minimal 3B2 comes with a 10 Megabyte hard disk, a 720 Kilobyte floppy drive, and 512 Kilobytes main memory, and a "core" set of UNIX** utilities. (Not stated is that the 3B2 can be configured with a 32 Megabyte hard disk and 1 or 2 Megabytes main memory). The most INCORRECT information (which may have originated from the salespeople--please, I blame no one, just wish to clarify) is that the "core" package includes the C compiler but no assembler or loader, etc. First, the basic 3B2 does NOT come with the C compiler. The goal here is to provide a basic machine that runs the bare essentials of the UNIX commands, for those who want a computer for reasons that don't include programming. In this way such people can save money by not buying the C compiler, but at the same time have a UNIX machine that can run other applications and still have some UNIX commands for normal UNIX file access, file manipulation, user environment manipulation, etc. Second, when one buys the C compiler, one buys THREE sets of floppies, FIVE diskettes in all. On these diskettes one gets the C compiler, header files, ASSEMBLER, LOADER, and other programs like yacc and lex. One of the three packages is called the C Programming Language Utilities and includes the C compiler, another package is called the Software Generation Utilities and includes the assembler and linker/loader, and the third package is called the Extended Software Generation Utilities and includes yacc and lex. Please tell this to anyone from AT&T who tries to sell you the C compiler without the assembler! Third, vi does come with TERMCAP; it has to, as vi does not work without it! Vi and TERMCAP come with any 3B2 configuration. Why, one might ask, package UNIX into pieces? There are two reasons. One is that, with the 10 Megabyte hard disk configuration, not ALL of UNIX (kernel, libraries, header files, utilities) will fit on the disk AND leave much room for user files. Second, even with a 32 Megabyte hard disk configuration, one may not WANT all of UNIX (does EVERYBODY use BASIC, for instance? How about FORTRAN? How about a line printer spooling program?) With the packaging onto separate disks, some separately purchased, one is able to put together a UNIX system that balances need with disk space and cost. Steve Humphrey AT&T Information Systems * 3B is a trademark of AT&T Technologies (Western Electric) ** UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/31/84)
Oh well, so much for UNIX as a standard. It's amazing how AT&T got up at the keynote speach at UNIFORUM and said things like Vendor Independence and Standardization, only to go around constantly contradicting these fine ideals. -Ron
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/01/84)
> Oh well, so much for UNIX as a standard. It's amazing how AT&T got up > at the keynote speach at UNIFORUM and said things like Vendor Independence > and Standardization, only to go around constantly contradicting these > fine ideals. I don't see how not supplying everything in section 1 of the UNIX User's Manual means that UNIX isn't a standard anymore. Heck, V6 was the last UNIX that had a nice compact manual; and 4.xBSD and USG UNIX now have rather elephantine sections 1. We supply most of System III on our systems, and it eats a lot of disk space; we had to make the PWB/Graphics software an add-on to keep things from getting ridiculous. A lot of our customers are just buying an office automation system, and don't need compilers, "nroff"/"troff", or every nice tool that comes with UNIX. Some systems even package the utilities needed for administrative functions into their application package. Why force a user to buy what they don't need? "UNIX as a standard" means "UNIX as an OS that runs on most of the machines of supermicro and up class which will make it easier for people to develop applications for the OS, not for the particular machine". People who need to develop software can pay the price (in money and disk space) for the development tools, but not having a C compiler on your machine won't keep you from running most of the applications out there. In fact, I suspect you can run most of the applications out there even if you don't have "grep"! Remember, what's good for people whose job involves developing software may not be good (or necessary) for everybody who uses a computer. There's frequently a "developer-centric" attitude among us "real UNIX programmers"; but five years from now, unless UNIX is a marketplace failure, most UNIX sites won't have any more sophisticated programmer than a COBOL or business BASIC programmer in-house - if even that. An analogy - a BMW comes (or, at least, came - I think it's still true) with a toolkit packed in the trunk. However, most of the cars on the road are Chevies, Fords, Oldsmobiles, etc. driven by people who treat their car as a dumb appliance. Back in the early days of motoring, you *did* have to have a complete toolkit and you *did* have to understand some of how the car worked. If cars had remained like that, we wouldn't have ~100 million cars on the road today. If computers are going to become the everyday appliances that many people are hoping or proclaiming that they will be, the attitude that "real computers come with a full suite of development software (whether you need it or not)" will have to change. In many ways, Apple has the right idea - aim your product at the person who needs a tool to get a job done, not at the person who wants to work on the tool. Offer development software to people who want it, but don't make it a standard part of the system unless you can make it cheap enough (in terms of all resources, including disk space) that it's not worth a customer's while to pass the tools up. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
jpj@mss.UUCP (06/01/84)
One item of curious interest here is that AT&T will *lease* you any of the aforementioned software. That's right, for $10/mo you can get a copy of C and if you decide you don't like it, send it back! Now I wonder how they intend to enforce that? The salesman that I talked to (they're making the rounds, aren't they?) admitted that he didn't know what people were thinking of when they came up with that idea. Live and learn... -- Cheers... Jim Jenal (aka sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) Mayfield Senior School ( " vortex!wlbr!scgvaxd!mss!jpj)
agk@ihuxq.UUCP (06/01/84)
This is going a little too far. People are jumping to all sorts of conclusions with too little information. (I know, I know, so what else is new on the net? :-) ) Command partitioning is happening. Period. It makes a lot of sense ($$$ savings) to a lot of people. If *you* want lex(1) and yacc(1), then *you* can buy it. Someone trying to run a business probably doesn't need it, although they can buy it. And, yes, some commands will be deleted. Where commands don't make sense, they won't be offered. Release 1.0 of the AT&T 3B2 system does not offer a phototypesetter interface. Therefore, the 3B2 software does not include commands to talk to a phototypesetter. It also lacks an RP06 disk driver. It also lacks a blender interface. Big deal. If someone builds an RP06 or blender interface to the 3B2, they will sell any necessary commands. In the end, the average user will end up spending less. Software developers, I guess, will end up spending more than average (far more people use vi(1) than cc(1), so cc is optional), but less than they might otherwise. For example, a software developer need only buy their favorite language, they don't have to pay for all the others. Finally, if there is enough demand for a product (a command), I feel sure that it will be offered. Of course, I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COMPANY, but business sense will prevail. By the way, the back end of the SGS (software generation system) was disconnected from the front end because almost all the front ends use the same back end (assembler, linker, loader,...). When you buy your first compiler, be sure to order the back end. When you buy your next compiler, you don't have to buy the back end again. -andy kegel just one more employee of AT&T Bell Labs
hart@cp1.UUCP (06/02/84)
For years we have described Unix as a very
powerful software tool kit. I don't know why
that description should be scraped. Are the
users outside the old Bell System that different?
--
======================================================================
signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez)
Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
Bell Atlantic Inc.
Silver Spring, Md.
gamma!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - aplvax!cp1!hart
======================================================================mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/02/84)
[ the bug is an optional (extra cost) part of this System V release ]
Well, well, I wondered when we were going to tackle this topic.
We always prided ourselves on supplying the `full UNIX <release n>'.
[ Silly disclaimer: actually, UniSoft's concept of the full system ].
We have done well with this because our market has primarily been people
who need the whole ball of wax.
Then I got System V. If I load it all onto the machine we have the large
base of out in the field, all of a sudden, no more room for users to store
THEIR programs. After a full distribution, plus swap space, you don't have
much left of a 20 meg disk....Solution? Make everybody buy a 500 meg disk,
of course!
No seriously, this IS a problem. My solution is to supply what is needed to
run with installed on the system, and the rest, partitioned into neat
little packages, is supplied on backup media, and can be installed on demand.
We have compiler tools in one package, accounting (acct and sa) in another,
on-line manuals in a third, games in a fourth, etc. This costs US money,
since we need to supply all the media to hold this stuff, but then, we always
supplied a full backup of the system anyway. My position is that the customer
has paid for it all anyway, so he should get it all. I mean, our kickback to
AT&T is the same whether I ship a floppy containg kernel, init, sh, and su
(basically enough to boot...), or if I ship 12 megabytes of software installed
on a hard disk. So why should the customer have to pay more for things I
have decided are less crucial and should be options?
By no means do I claim that a machine has to have the full distribution on
it to be worthwhile - most people only need a small subset of what comes
with AT&T Sys V. We have to try to make efficient use of the machine we
sell, or it won't be a good value. Why force someone who only wants to
run a spreadsheet to have YACC an LEX (and SNO?) on line. But until AT&T
starts selling me UNIX in pieces (okay, so they have started already), I
won't *SELL* it in pieces, although I may distribute it in pieces.
Except for the line eater bug, which costs $250 extra.
This solution is right for us, it may not be right for others.
Mats Wichmann
Dual Systems Corp.
...{ucbvax,amd70,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!matsboylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (06/03/84)
A number of people have made comments in defense of the partitioning
of UNIX software by various vendors to the effect that it makes the
software cheaper. I have to disagreed with this position since if
the software is sold to anyone, the vendor will have to have the
support personnel and in the case of resellers, they still have
to recover their UNIX licensing fee which they pay to Bell, er AT&T
regardless of how much of UNIX they actually package in the systems
they sell.
While there are some additional costs, such as phone consulting, if
UNIX vendors sell all parts of UNIX instead of breaking it up, I
think they will not be terribly significant. The only instance where
this obviously isn't true (that I can think of) is when the particular
vendor simply doesn't sell (say) the C compiler since said vendor
would then never have to deal with "how does this foobar work?".
The obvious reason for vendors spliting up UNIX when they sell it is
it's a good marketing trick to increase how much bucks they get. It's
the same type of thing that's done in sell cars or anything else,
make the entry price low and get them on the "options". From a business
standpoint it clearly makes sense and from a consumers point of view
it sucks.
As Steve Martin said, "Capitalism is not a pretty sight".
Hey, nothing's perfect.
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylanguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/03/84)
> For years we have described Unix as a very > powerful software tool kit. I don't know why > that description should be scraped. Are the > users outside the old Bell System that different? UNIX is a lot of things: it's a portable OS, it's an OS which doesn't make life difficult by excessive idiot-proofing (for instance, you're not forced to use one of a small set of OS-supplied file formats), and it's an OS which comes with a lot of tools and facilities to glue those tools together. The third is useful to those shops with the expertise to build systems out of those tools *and* willing to put up with the limitations of those tools; the second is useful to application developers, and as such indirectly useful to the user community; but, frankly, the first is the reason it'll make it in the mass market. If you consider it *only* to be a powerful software tool kit, its appeal will be considerably limited. Remember, few of the potential customers for computers are as sophisticated as "we" are. That description shouldn't be scrapped, but it shouldn't be a definition, either. It's not a question of users inside vs. outside of the old Bell System. It's a question of old-time UNIX users vs. new computer users to whom UNIX is just another name; what they care about is "how much software can I buy" - buy, not build - "for this system". UNIX's portability will, with luck, expand the amount of software available for it, because you can write software for UNIX rather than for a Frobozz, Inc. BX-9000 Superdupermicro. Most of the ones wanting compilers, etc. will want COBOL and BASIC compilers rather than C compilers. We can all ritually deplore this state of affairs, but there isn't a heck of a lot we can do to change it. The day of the UNIX hacker isn't going away - there are OS/360 (and successors) hackers out there, and TOPS-10 hackers, and TOPS-20 hackers, and VMS hackers, etc. - but the average small business probably doesn't have a MS-DOS or Basic Four (or whatever small business computer system they have) hacker in house. And that's the big market - the people out there who *don't* have computers, not the people who do. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (06/04/84)
C'mon folks -- I, like you, am used to "full UNIX" -- meaning having run of all of section 1 AND the source to the whole schmeer. It is akin to having an infinite credit balance at a large department store... But if you refuse to recognize that having anything dreamed up by anybody anytime COSTS, you are living in a self-imposed fantasy. You want everything? Fine, you can buy it. But you have no right to spread your costs over the world at large, when the average person (not hacker!) wants only what's useful to THEM (and wants to PAY only for what is useful). Sure, yacc is a useful tool. But for what fraction of the total market? cc is useful for a broader market, but again: how many computer USERS are computer PROGRAMMERS? In your particular corner the percentage may be high, but most of the programs I write get replicated dozens or hundreds of times onto "field" machines that lack source, compilers, etc. If AT&T marketing has sinned, it was the somewhat minor crime of not making it totally clear just what was standard and what was optional for the 3B2. We might expect better of AT&T, but no one who has ever bought a car from a new car dealer should be SURPRISED at the confusion. There is even the hope that AT&T marketing will LEARN from this experience and improve on the situation before the 3B2 becomes generally available! Willing to pay for my toys, =Ned=
lamarche@micomvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
q References: <425@hogpc.UUCP> y
lamarche@micomvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
q References: <425@hogpc.UUCP> y
knutson@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/04/84)
So I don't need some of the tools like yacc and lex. I don't have to
buy them. Well hooray, I just saved some money. Ha. Nowhere have
I seen that the basic subset you get with the 3b2 is discounted
appropriately for each of the packages you don't get.
Now let's see, if I add the cost of all those packages to the basic
package, I get the cost of a source liscense.
Actually, I have no prices, so I'm exaggerating, but I wouldn't doubt
that it is close to true and there's no way I'm going to pay twice for
the software. Also, since the price of Sys 5 is bundled in with the
3b2, does that mean that there are no educational discounts on it?
I would assume the bundled in price is the price they are charging the
real world.
AT&T had better get their act together if they don't want to lose their
shirt.
Jim Knutson
ARPA: knutson@ut-ngp
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!knutson
Phone: (512) 471-3241jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (06/04/84)
In defense of the partitioning of UNIX software for the 3B2.
Everyone seems to think this is AT&T's idea. When the manager making
the purchase sees a list of the software he is paying for he is going
to start asking about what kind of discount he can get if he doesn't
buy nroff, the C compiler, and uucp.
Not everyone wants to do development on these machines. Some people
will probably buy it for a dedicated application (it would make a nice
center network node) or will just run vi and nroff on it.
In short, if AT&T didn't offer to sell the parts individually then we
would see 500 articles from people who were being "forced by AT&T" to
buy software they didn't need.
I think most people's complaints are based on the idea that their
manager will buy one and force them to justify getting all the neat
little goodies they want to play with. I'm not criticizing this just
pointing out that people should say so if it is their motivation.
(It would be my complaint except for the fact that ours came with a
full set of software.)
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerryjml@drutx.UUCP (LeonJM) (06/05/84)
<small match-type flame> It amazes me how people can complain so much about how much things cost without knowing the prices. John Leon druny!jml
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (06/06/84)
>From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) >Everyone seems to think this is AT&T's idea. When the manager making >the purchase sees a list of the software he is paying for he is going >to start asking about what kind of discount he can get if he doesn't >buy nroff, the C compiler, and uucp. >Not everyone wants to do development on these machines. Some people >will probably buy it for a dedicated application (it would make a nice >center network node) or will just run vi and nroff on it. This is all true and a good argument, however the reverse position is also true. Generally people want a language and a bunch of tools, whether they are database systems or yacc isn't really important, and from my point of view selling them a stripped UNIX system and making them buy the things they specifically know they need isn't doing them a favor. For the most part, selling a stripped UNIX system at a "lower?" price forces the price up for those users who will use/need a wide assortment of tools [included but not limited to us or at least me]. It causes the manager (as per Jerry's article) to preceive the system costing less, at the expense of not getting the "free" software [no flames, please] thus making it MORE expensive should the application change, it's scope expand or the number or applications increase. I would rather see potential unbundlers send the software along on an extra tape, floppys, cassette, etc. and use it as a feature: Includes 43K of software at NO additional cost!!! A lot of the IBM-PC compatible people toss in `3000 dollars' worth of software at "NO" addition cost to good effect. It worked for Osborne for quite awhile. Anyway, another approach would be to offer the excess software at a nominal charge so that it wouldn't price it out of the reach of those really wanted it ALL while still providing some encouragement to the inexperienced buyer to plan a little bit and/or "splurge" for that little frill. Prehaps the software leasing plan that has been mentioned in this forum is AT&T's attempt at this... As an aside, I think the person who suggested that disk storage capacity is a reasonable limit or excuse for not shipping everything had a good point. It doesn't appear (from what I know) that this is a real problem but it is an eminently reasonable determining factor. -- Chris Boylan {mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan
mats@dual.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (06/06/84)
> For years we have described Unix as a very > powerful software tool kit. I don't know why > that description should be scrapped. Are the > users outside the old Bell System that different? Yes, they are. While many of the *CURRENT* users are probably on a technical level at least comparable to what exists inside AT&T Bell Labs, the market I am selling to, and which many of the other readers of this net are selling to, and which represent our mealticket for the next few years, consists of a large number of people who are not concerned with how easy or elegant it is to build a solution to a problem, they want the solution ready-to-buy. I don't like this; I would like to sell to research labs who know as much as/more than I do, but the economic realities are that this is not the segment of the potential market that has the money to spend. What is needed to appeal to these people is not the toolkit, but what the skilled carpenter has built with the toolkit. Guy Harris: > UNIX is a lot of things: it's a portable OS, it's an OS which doesn't make > life difficult by excessive idiot-proofing (for instance, you're not forced > to use one of a small set of OS-supplied file formats), and it's an OS which > comes with a lot of tools and facilities to glue those tools together. > The third is useful to those shops with the expertise to build systems out > of those tools *and* willing to put up with the limitations of those tools; > the second is useful to application developers, and as such indirectly useful > to the user community; but, frankly, the first is the reason it'll make it > in the mass market. If you consider it *only* to be a powerful software > tool kit, its appeal will be considerably limited. Remember, few of the > potential customers for computers are as sophisticated as "we" are. That > description shouldn't be scrapped, but it shouldn't be a definition, either. To my mind, UNIX is a concept, not a product. We have a system that works tolerably well; the future depends what we can do with the building blocks we now have. The portability question is important to everybody, but on different levels. For a hardware company, it means you can build a piece of hardware, and for a `reasonable' cost you can get a powerful OS running, without having to invest in a large staff and waiting several years. For the software developer, it is heaven - a system that allows a piece of software to be moved to many different vendors' hardware (thus increasing potential market greatly) without much trouble. For the end-user, it means that software developed and proven on one machine is likely to run on another. What is the reality? Well, right now, hardware companies are starting to realise that they have lost two very important things in going to a so-called `standard' UNIX system: the lock-in that has traditionally meant continuing revenues (okay, tell me why a customer would continue to buy my machine if Bozinski Computers comes with the Roboz-III, which costs 1/2 of what my machine does, runs the same software, and does it three times as fast. All of a sudden things like support and expandability matter a whole lot less in closing an end-user sale), and it also means that the hardware is probably not being used at anywhere its' theoretical maximum. Customers are still fighting all of the hype which says that UNIX is the be-all, end-all, solution to everything, and finding that the reality is that even finding a simple solution like a good word processor is much more difficult than it should be. Have you yet seen a word processor on UNIX that takes advantage of what the machine can do as well as Wordstar did for 8080-Z80 systems? (Shuts up about NROFF, have you ever tried to support it on a commercial level for novice users????). Face it folks, we have a *LONG* way to go. What *I* would like to see are things like good solid support for VM, so that we could handle things like shared libraries (bring standard modules in at run-time, instead of at compile time, (have you ever considered how much disk and memory space is taken up by the standard `hello.c' program?? Outrageous to waste resources like that!!!)), and an intelligent way to reconfigure the OS during run-time, instead of compile-time. Imagine an expandable, object-based UNIX system kernel, with shared library routines. An operating system should aid in providing solutions to be commercially successful; so far we only provide tools. Thoughts on this diatribe??? Personal flames, are okay.... Mats Wichmann Dual Systems Corp. ...{ucbvax,amd70,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune}!dual!mats
crp@stcvax.UUCP (06/06/84)
One additional concern created by "partitioning" the universe of common UNIX
commands and utilities is "what packages does MY product need to run"?
That is, will people trying to write commercial packages for a UNIX system
depend only on the core package utilities -- or will they specify that
they use one of the wonderful "tools" that isn't in the core package.
This isn't going to be convenient for anybody unless their are "standard"
definitions of what the UNIX "packages" are.
I would hope that people will make use of utilities like awk when
appropriate, but I suppose that they will want their product to be
completely independent and run fast (so it can't be a shell script).
I suspect that the bulk of the computer users knocking around
are not interested in piping together little utilities to do something
useful for themselves. The "toolkit" aspect of UNIX is going to be
completely lost in most of the environments it executes in.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the "toolkit" aspect of
UNIX was created because we developers use "tools" heavily and we
often want to do unexpected things that can be cobbled together out
of some general purpose parts. Further, we are up to cobbling.
The business user wants some particular set of things, probably doesn't
want to think too hard about doing other unexpected stuff,
and isn't interested in becoming a computer tool cobbler.
It is just a different world out there.
(so lets stay here!).
--
Charlie Price {hao ihnp4 decvax philabs sdcrdcf}!stcvax!crp (303) 673-5698
USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028ron@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/07/84)
It's not the partitioning itself I am complaining about, it's calling the resultant product UNIX that bothers me. -Ron
bytebug@pertec.UUCP (06/07/84)
> cc is useful for a broader market, but again: how many computer USERS are > computer PROGRAMMERS? In your particular corner the percentage may be high, > but most of the programs I write get replicated dozens or hundreds of times > onto "field" machines that lack source, compilers, etc. Why does having a C compiler mean that you have to be a C programmer? You should take a look at what has happened over the past several years in the realm of public-domain software. There are quite a number of computerized "bulletin board" systems around the country (world?). Software is put into the public domain by people who want to share their work with the rest of the world. Much of the public domain software which I'm acquainted with is for CP/M systems, and thus runs on an 8080/z80. Because of this, there is not as much of a need to distribute source, since the object will run directly. A lot of source *is* distributed, and through this sharing, programs evolve into truely useful tools! Sadly, this may not be the case with UNIX. If you want to run my netnews reader, you better have a 68000-based system that understands my type of binary files. You have a VAX? Then you better have a C compiler. Oh, you don't have YACC? Then how are you going to compile the "getdate" routine? You don't have to be a programmer to learn enough to compile a program, do you? You don't have to be a programmer to extract some public domain programs from a diskette and type "make". I suggest leaving everything on the distribution, and let the user pick and choose what he/she wants to load.
elh@edison.UUCP (06/08/84)
Our local ATT-IS rep stated that one could get all the packages that would be necessary to make up a "full" UNIX for a total of about $1000. I don't think it will all fit on the 10 Meg version and have any room left for any user programs. Ed Hepler
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/09/84)
> Why does having a C compiler mean that you have to be a C programmer? You > should take a look at what has happened over the past several years in the > realm of public-domain software. There are quite a number of computerized > "bulletin board" systems around the country (world?). Software is put into > the public domain by people who want to share their work with the rest of > the world. > Sadly, this (getting runnable binary copies of the aforementioned software) > may not be the case with UNIX. If you want to run my netnews reader, you > better have a 68000-based system that understands my type of binary files. > You have a VAX? Then you better have a C compiler. Oh, you don't have YACC? > Then how are you going to compile the "getdate" routine? If the 3B2 is being sold as a small UNIX box for business use, this is probably an atypical use of such a machine. The point being made in a lot of this discussion is simply "When you build your model of the typical computer user, forget that any of the current computer-hacker culture exists. Assume that the typical purchaser has never heard of C except as a buzzword, has never heard of YACC at all, and has nobody in house knowledgable enough to even run "make" - and has no reason whatsoever to spend money to hire such a person." This user would have to find somebody with a binary copy of this program - surely there'd be a 3B User's Group which could make such software available, or could at least point the user at somebody who does have it available in binary form. Actually, there are several points being discussed here: 1) Would the typical purchaser of, say, a 3B2 be able to use software development tools, and even if they could would they want to? They have to weigh benefits and costs. People who can work with UNIX and C cost money. Public-domain software can cost money - such a shop may not be able to support such software, and if nobody else will they can't depend on it for the operation of their business. Any programs that take up disk space cost money - disk drives are not free. 2) Should all systems offering UNIX come with every single piece of the variety of UNIX offered pre-installed on their disks? I think the answer is clearly "no". Keeping all of System V, or 4.2BSD, or probably even V7 online would require a large disk or would leave very little space for users. Why should they pay for the large disk, or suffer with limited user space, when they will probably never use (directly or indirectly) most of that software? 3) Should such unbundled systems offer the optional components at extra cost, or should the user get full UNIX but divided into several option packages? This depends on whether there are significant extra costs involved in providing the full system (medium (sic) costs are probably not significant), such as support costs or costs due to amortizing the cost of developing that software, and, alas, on which scheme makes the vendor more money. Not all vendors are as altruistic as we hackers are :-), so they may decide to charge extra for the add-ons for the simple reason that they *can*. That's capitalism, folks. AT&T isn't selling 3Bs to offer computer power to the world, they're doing it to obtain a return on their investment. No moral point intended here, by the way. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/09/84)
From the UNIXtm System Administrator (sic) Guide [for the] 3B5 Processor,
page A-7:
DUP TABLE OVERFLOW (CONTINUE)
An internal table in fsck containing duplicate block numbers has no
more room. Reompile fsck with a larger value of DUPTBLSIZE.
I hope the C compiler isn't an ``option''...
<enter sarcastic mode>
Customer: I'm having this problem with the software. (description)
What should I do?
AT&T: Oh, that! Just recompile the system with option blat.
Customer: But, you didn't give us the compiler!
AT&T: Of course not. You don't expect us to let you fix our bugs
for free do you?
<EOF>
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@marylandguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/10/84)
> From the UNIXtm System Administrator (sic) Guide [for the] 3B5 Processor, > page A-7: > DUP TABLE OVERFLOW (CONTINUE) > An internal table in fsck containing duplicate block numbers has no > more room. Reompile fsck with a larger value of DUPTBLSIZE. > I hope the C compiler isn't an ``option''... > <enter sarcastic mode> > Customer: I'm having this problem with the software. (description) > What should I do? > AT&T: Oh, that! Just recompile the system with option blat. AT&T is slowly learning that "recompile program xxx with option blat" isn't a very useful instruction in administrator's manuals; after all, all the sites that run UNIX, at least the ones we care about, have UNIX source, right? :-) A less severe, but probably more annoying, version was the USG UNIX accounting package. It sliced up CPU and connect time into "prime time" and "non-prime time"; "prime time" was 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday, except holidays. Unfortunately, business hours and the holiday list were *compiled into the accounting programs*, and when it came near the end of the year the accounting software would instruct you to "RECOMPILE pnpsplit WITH NEW HOLIDAYS". Well, if you didn't have source, and it wasn't 1980, or your holiday schedule didn't coincide with the Bell Labs 1980 schedule, guess what creek you were up? This was fixed in System V - the holiday schedule comes from a file (although in a masterful stroke of human engineering you specify the days by their day-of-year value. Of *course* everybody has a calendar with the day-of-year marked on each day, right?). I think a good discipline for producing software which doesn't use "cc" as an essential customizing tool is to distribute the software to a machine with no compilers, no libraries, no include files, no *nothing* - and let it run for a while. Any problems that can't be fixed, or any necessary customization that can't be done, becaus the compilers are missing is reported as a bug and has to be fixed before the software is released. Slows down the release, possibly quite a bit, but at least you don't get burned when you send out binary copies... Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/11/84)
--
Wow--it's amazing what fantasies intelligent hackers can come up with
based on absolutely no data. You're just going to have to cool your
buns until you can get your hands on the 3B2 and play with one (and
try and break it, of course). It's not like we at Bell Labs did not
anticipate the plethora of problems posed by unbundling Un*x and its
occasionally meretricious user interface. I believe the line from
"Teahouse of the August Moon" was "We very humble people, boss, but we
not born yesterday."
Remember--Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 10 Jun 84 [22 Prairial An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/11/84)
[] >Wow--it's amazing what fantasies intelligent hackers can come up with >based on absolutely no data. You're just going to have to cool your >buns until you can get your hands on the 3B2 and play with one (and >try and break it, of course). I got my hands on a 3b2, didn't try to break it, was very impressed with the hardware (and posted that opinion) and was monumentally unimpressed with the demonstrated software. Compiler, no assembler or loader, no utility to page things a screenful at a time (not even "p" from K & P!) >It's not like we at Bell Labs did not >anticipate the plethora of problems posed by unbundling Un*x and its >occasionally meretricious user interface. Neat. It might have been nice to *do* something about them before subjecting your well-meaning but totally uninformed and inexperienced sales people in AT&T Information Systems to such an embarrassing collection of software. > I believe the line from >"Teahouse of the August Moon" was "We very humble people, boss, but we >not born yesterday." Right. It was 1 Jan 1984, as I recall: divesture day. >Remember--Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories. > >ken perlow That, like the Alamo and Pearl Harbor, is hard to forget. -- Ed Nather {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!nather Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austin
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/12/84)
>From: elh@edison.UUCP Fri Jun 8 09:50:14 1984 >Our local ATT-IS rep stated that one could get all the packages >that would be necessary to make up a "full" UNIX for a total of >about $1000. If this is true, I think the squawking about unblundling is premature. Try to get that mush software running under MS-DOS on a PC for a significant amount less. Consider also that this opens things up to non-AT&T suppliers of tools who could very well undercut even this price. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary