km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) (05/10/89)
The computing world is getting more open.
I applaud Apple for disclosing its plans for MacOS in the
recent announcements concerning System 7.0.
I applaud the Unix International and Open Software Foundations
for being very public about defining their future releases.
On the other hand, I have seen nothing comparable from Apple
about the directions of A/UX. Actually, beyond some vague
comments on increased MacOS compatibility, I have heard nothing
about the feature content of future versions of A/UX. Certainly
nothing about the Unix only features.
I certainly could ask many questions. Will A/UX support:
-- Motorola ABI
-- SVID R3
-- SVID R4
-- New NFS features: Secure NFS, Netboot, NFS swap, ..
-- RFS
-- BSD features in SysVR4 : BSD fast file system, ..
-- X/NeWS server
-- ...
I encourage the Apple A/UX product management to follow the
precedent set by the Apple MacOS, UI, and OSF groups, and
better define what their users can expect in future releases.
--
Ken Mandelberg | km@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED
Emory University | {decvax,gatech}!emory!km UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | km@emory.bitnet NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322 | Phone: (404) 727-7963gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (05/16/89)
km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) wrote: > Actually, beyond some vague > comments on increased MacOS compatibility, I have heard nothing > about the feature content of future versions of A/UX. Certainly > nothing about the Unix only features. That's because Apple is unlikely to provide any. My guess is that Apple has sold between 1500 and 3000 copies of A/UX. This is probably the level they are comfortable with. Any customer who runs A/UX is likely to switch to a different brand for their next computer, since Apple hardware doesn't compete on price/performance. The reason to sell A/UX at all is that GSA won't let US Government departments buy any computers that can't be upgraded to run Unix. This rationale also points up why the only development Apple is doing on A/UX is "increased MacOS compatability". If they can get the few A/UX users locked in to the proprietary MacOS toolbox, they won't be able to switch to more cost-effective hardware. There is no point in doing any more than this, since the number of units they want to sell would never pay back the investment. And it accounts for why Apple is not marketing A/UX -- they don't WANT to sell copies. Even the Government purchasers are supposed to run MacOS -- UNIX is just there to get past the GSA. > I certainly could ask many questions. Will A/UX support: > -- X/NeWS server I can certainly answer this one. NO WAY! We sold NeWS on A/UX since the day A/UX was introduced, and were probably the first third party product to ship on A/UX. We have gotten zilch help from the formal channels at Apple. They don't WANT other display technologies or user interfaces to compete with the Toolbox. Especially not ones from Sun! We have gotten some support from a few individuals scattered around within Apple, but the corporate line is solidly against us. Don't expect their X server to compete with the toolbox, of course. I expect it to remain slower, cost more, and never interoperate with MacOS or Toolbox applications. (When we told them we wanted to put NeWS, X, and MacOS windows on the same screen at the same time they said it was not possible. This from the 'innovators' in user interface technology!) This entire message is my opinion, based on trying to sell third party software for A/UX for more than a year. Correction or corroboration welcome. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
john@unisoft.UUCP (John Sovereign) (05/17/89)
In article <7304@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) wrote: >> Actually, beyond some vague >> comments on increased MacOS compatibility, I have heard nothing >> about the feature content of future versions of A/UX. Certainly >> nothing about the Unix only features. > >That's because Apple is unlikely to provide any. I don't agree. Look at the "Unix" features Apple has already added to A/UX since 1.0. NFS 3.2 SLIP More BSD'isms (e.g., RCS) X Windows POSIX Combined with the original release, A/UX is already, in many respects, "feature-competitive" with SVR4, e.g., a "merged" UNIX, easier kernel reconfiguration, STREAMS, .... >The reason to sell A/UX at all is that GSA won't let US Government >departments buy any computers that can't be upgraded to run Unix. Of the new features listed above, only POSIX can be considered driven by the Government. >able to switch to more cost-effective hardware. There is no point in >doing any more than this, since the number of units they want to sell >would never pay back the investment. And it accounts for why Apple is >not marketing A/UX -- they don't WANT to sell copies. Even the Again, I don't agree with this analysis of Apple's strategy. Why is Mac OS compatibility a priority for A/UX? Because the users want it. A big reason UNIX is only 5% of the installed computer base is the lack of application software. Users don't care what operating system runs their machine for them! With Mac OS compatibility, A/UX instantly claims a huge application software base (I want my Word 4.0!). At the same time, as I suggest above, Apple IS enhancing the UNIX of A/UX. John Sovereign uunet!unisoft!john UniSoft Corporation #include <disclaimer.h>
phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) (05/17/89)
The following is not a flame. If there is any accidental flammable "spills"
in this posting, let me know, and crew of guys from Alaska will come over
and steam out your spool directories. I am not allowed, and can't, talk
about Apple future product directions. At Apple, you have to be at least a
VP before you can leak that stuff. :-)
John Gilmore recently posted a response to a question from Ken Mandelberg
on the "Future direction of A/UX". Reading Mr. Gilmore's reply (in my humble
and subjective personal opinion), it looks like the reply is based more on
the author's problems in selling his product and perhaps lack of as much help
as he would like get from Apple. Mr. Gilmore brings up 5 points I'd like to
respond to:
1. That's because Apple is unlikely to provide any [UNIX only features]
* Well, this is simply not true. System V plus BSD features, KSH, true
BSD signals & CSH, TCP/IP, subnets, domains, NFS & YP, autoconfig and
autorepair, a SCSI driver that accepted many other drives than just
the manufacturers, all that in RELASE 1.0! Release 1.1 includes
POSIX, better Mac binary supporte, HFX, increased SCSI support,
better drivers, AppleTalk, and more.
2. And it accounts for why Apple is>not marketing A/UX --
they don't WANT to sell copies
* Well, that's news to me, the A/UX engineering, product management and
marketing groups. We've sold far more A/UX systems in our first year
than SUN sold in their first year. We WANT to sell, we LIKE to sell, ...
3. Any customer who runs A/UX is likely to switch to a different brand...
* Well, I hope not!! :-) :-)
4. The reason to sell A/UX at all is that GSA won't let US Government
departments buy any computers that can't be upgraded to run Unix.
* Or MS/DOS. Certainly a (repeat a) reason that we did A/UX was to sell
to the government markets. Since the U.S. government now has bids
outstanding for several BILLION dollars worth of UNIX gear, I'd say
that it ain't such a bad reason. Of course, bidding your equipment on
billions of $$$ woth of bids does mean you're sorta serious about what
you're selling ...
5. If they can get the few A/UX users locked in to the proprietary MacOS
toolbox, they won't be able to switch to more cost-effective hardware...
* Awwww, come on. We just don't think like that. We didn't bust our
buns over SVVS, POSIX, X, NFS, YP, domains, TCP/IP and other effective
standards to let claims like that be thrown at us. After all, what
did you expect us to use for our windowing/UI software? New Wave??? :-)
>We have gotten zilch help from the formal
>channels at Apple. They don't WANT other display technologies or user
>interfaces to compete with the Toolbox. Especially not ones from Sun!
>We have gotten some support from a few individuals scattered around
>within Apple, but the corporate line is solidly against us.
>...
>This entire message is my opinion, based on trying to sell third party
>software for A/UX for more than a year. Correction or corroboration welcome.
Our evangelists are the most
overworked creatures I've ever seen. I saw first hand our direct help given
to "competing" card & display manufacturers to build products that directly
competed with us. We spun Mac* software out to Claris because third party
software vendors didn't want us giving away free software.
Are you saying the corporate line is solidly against you?? You personally?
I don't understand this point at all.
I have personally worked with several small startup software companies that
based their reason-to-exist on A/UX. Like any startup, it can be a "bet your
mortagage" situtation. When things look tough, perhaps it is easiest to
blame the Apple, BUT, is it fair????
Tell us WHAT you didn't like or that makes your selling efforts so
difficult. Don't tell us your mystical intepretation of Apple policy.
Comments like "I need X in color" or "POSIX 13" to sell so-and-so are very
helpful.
Comments like "the coporate line is against us" tell us nothing and could be
seen as "cry witch" syndrome.
TELL US WHAT YOU NEED. WE LISTEN. O.K., we don't have infinite manpower and
could do it all, but we listen.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Philip K. Ronzone, Apple Computer, 10440 Bubb Rd, MS 58A, Cupertino, CA 95014|
|{amdahl,decwrl,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft,...}!apple!phil |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| All "IMHOs" disclaimed and copyrighted. | Self defense is a human right ... |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+currier@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Jeffrey M. Currier) (05/17/89)
have two questions: first, although it doesn't really matter, what is the GSA? I assume it's some govenment reglatory committee. secondly, who out there really likes or is benefiting from their A/UX? If you benefit, what version do you have? Note: I am a graduate student at the University of Arizona and had version 1.0.1 running on a Mac IIx. I took it off to run MAC OS and use NCSA telnet to remote login to other workstations on campus. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Currier (602)621-4948 | "Live each day as your last, Computational Fluid Mechanics Lab | because to die already dead University of Arizona, Tucson | is the worst death of all." currier@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov | -----------------------------------------------------------------
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (05/19/89)
phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) wrote: > John Gilmore recently posted a response to a question from Ken Mandelberg > on the "Future direction of A/UX". Reading Mr. Gilmore's reply (in my humble > and subjective personal opinion), it looks like the reply is based more on > the author's problems in selling his product and perhaps lack of as much help > as he would like get from Apple. These problems and lacks have given me insight into the future direction of A/UX. In my humble and subjective personal opinion. > Mr. Gilmore brings up 5 points I'd like to respond to: > > 1. That's because Apple is unlikely to provide any [UNIX only features] Quoted out of context. The context was "future versions of A/UX". Phil's entire response is about *current* versions of A/UX, which are, I admit, (get those hot pincers away, Phil! :) Unix systems. > Release 1.1 includes > POSIX, better Mac binary supporte, HFX, increased SCSI support, > better drivers, AppleTalk, and more. Of that list, only POSIX is a Unix-only feature. The rest are specific to the MacOS and to their hardware. > 2. And it accounts for why Apple is not marketing A/UX -- > they don't WANT to sell copies > > * Well, that's news to me, the A/UX engineering, product management and > marketing groups. We've sold far more A/UX systems in our first year > than SUN sold in their first year. Sun didn't sell any A/UX systems in their first year. :) But seriously folks, Sun sold 1,100 Sun-1's total -- and some of those were sold the second year. I notice that he didn't challenge my figure of 1,500 to 3,000 A/UX systems. > 4. The reason to sell A/UX at all is that GSA won't let US Government > departments buy any computers that can't be upgraded to run Unix. > * Or MS/DOS. Certainly a (repeat a) reason that we did A/UX was to sell > to the government markets. Give me another reason that Apple did A/UX, besides government buying rules. How many machines are bid to the government as MacOS machines ("upgradeable to Unix"), and how many as real Unix machines? Lemme guess -- you can't talk about that. > 5. If they can get the few A/UX users locked in to the proprietary MacOS > toolbox, they won't be able to switch to more cost-effective hardware. > > * Awwww, come on. We just don't think like that. We didn't bust our > buns over SVVS, POSIX, X, NFS, YP, domains, TCP/IP and other effective > standards to let claims like that be thrown at us. Let's knock over a few strawmen, shall we? Everybody who sells Unix has, or promises, SVVS, POSIX, X, NFS, TCP, etc. This has nothing to do with whether the Apple software strategy is to lock people in to the MacOS toolbox. I am not accusing Phil or the A/UX group of trying to lock people in, by the way. This strategy comes from high levels at Apple. If they don't want to lock people in, why don't they license the MacOS Toolbox to other hardware vendors? I'm sure a number of companies would like to run Mac applications on non-Apple hardware. Instead, Apple bought the one company (Cadmus) that was reverse engineering it, and sues everyone else who even looks similar. > After all, what > did you expect us to use for our windowing/UI software? New Wave??? :-) The only windowing software Apple currently sells for A/UX is X Windows, and New Wave will certainly run on it (over the net). There is a "term" program that comes with A/UX, but I don't think a terminal emulator with more than one window counts as "windowing software". The MacOS Toolbox support is not "windowing software" either, since you can only run one "window" at a time. Even the MacOS can run multiple applications in multiple windows, but not the A/UX Toolbox! > > We have gotten zilch help from the formal > > channels at Apple. They don't WANT other display technologies or user > > interfaces to compete with the Toolbox. Especially not ones from Sun! > Are you saying the corporate line is solidly against you?? You personally? > I don't understand this point at all. Apple's corporate line is solidly against Grasshopper, since Grasshopper sells NeWS, the Sun window system, PostScript on the screen, etc, on Apple hardware. I am one of three partners in Grasshopper. > I have personally worked with several small startup software companies that > based their reason-to-exist on A/UX. Like any startup, it can be a "bet your > mortagage" situtation. When things look tough, perhaps it is easiest to > blame the Apple, BUT, is it fair???? No, it isn't fair to blame Apple. I'm not blaming Apple. The problem was that we expected there to be a market for A/UX software. 1500 machines is not much of a market; even though we sold to a reasonable percentage of this market, we can't make money at it. Apple is not to blame for this, we should have figured out the market size before we started. The point of my message was to warn other people who haven't figured out "the A/UX market" yet (both developers and users). Grasshopper has *no* dissatisfied customers that I know of. Everyone who bought our product, likes it. Nobody ever attempted to return it, and many have bought upgrades and additional copies. We just never found enough people who could run it, because it depends on A/UX. > Tell us WHAT you didn't like or that makes your selling efforts so > difficult. Don't tell us your mystical intepretation of Apple policy. > Comments like "I need X in color" or "POSIX 13" to sell so-and-so are very > helpful. I don't need technical features. I need there to be more than 1500 machines. Sun ships 10,000 to 20,000 Unix machines a month; there's a market for Sun software. Where's the A/UX software market? Where are the Apple ads for A/UX? Where are the promotions? The computer stores with A/UX in the window (or even on the showroom floor!)? Another area is that Apple will provide mailing lists for developers to sell to MacOS users, but not to A/UX users. The only way we have found to locate A/UX users is by watching who posts to the net! Apple won't tell us about the customers, and won't tell the customers about us. They won't even tell us what computer stores are authorized to sell A/UX. Finding 1,500 needles in a worldwide haystack is more than we can do by ourselves. > TELL US WHAT YOU NEED. WE LISTEN. O.K., we don't have infinite manpower and > could do it all, but we listen. I need there to be more than 1500 machines to sell to, and a way to find them. Correction or corroboration welcome. Any other A/UX developers on the net? -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (05/19/89)
Two small corrections to my previous message:
* I said Sun was shipping "10,000 to 20,000 Unix machines a month".
This is wrong. Sun hasn't released this info for fiscal 1989 yet, but
if shipments follow the previous trend, they will end up shipping
10,000 machines for the first time this month or in June. 20,000
is way out of the ballpark. Sorry 'bout that.
* I guesstimated 1,500 to 3,000 copies of A/UX sold. That is not
what we are really interested in, though. The question is how many
copies of A/UX are running. Within the last two weeks, two posters
have remarked that they removed A/UX from their systems and are now
running the MacOS exclusively. I also note that when memory was
tight, the only way to get a 4MB Mac-II from Apple was to order it
with A/UX, whether you planned to run it or not. In the other
direction, undoubtedly some copies of A/UX were cloned and are now
running on multiple machines. Since both of these actions are private
decisions (and one is grounds for copyright infringement suits), good
numbers are going to be hard to find. Still, getting an official
number of units sold by Apple would give us a ballpark idea of where
we stand. Another good metric would be the number of A/UX 1.1 updates
purchased, since it shows how many sites are actively tracking the
latest A/UX release. Is there *someone* at Apple who is authorised
to give these figures?
--
John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.chn@alpha.lanl.gov (Charles Neil) (05/19/89)
Work out a swap with Commodore Ltd.: Trade technical and sales management hierarchies. That way Apple opens the gates to hackers and Commodore learns how to sell stuff. Just a suggestion... -- Charlie Neil (chn@lanl.gov) Los Alamos National Laboratory (505) 665-0978
time@oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres) (05/19/89)
John Gilmore responds to Phil Ronzone at Apple:
Where is the A/UX software market?
I [and GrassHopper I assume, TGE] need there to be more than 1500
A/UX machines and I need a way to find them.
John's main point is correct and to the bone.
Apple has made obtaining A/UX one of the most difficult prospects
a Macintosh owner faces. I am still amazed at the EFFORT it took
me, a certified developer of 4 years with a need to develop a
large Unix based custom software system for Blue Cross Blue Shield,
to get a working A/UX system. I had the box, I had the drive, and
I know Unix, all I needed was the software. Well, that took 6 months
and a lot of money, and little help from Apple.
A Macintosh owner with a MacIIx and a large enough hard disk
should be able to load A/UX run time for less than $500.
When I discussed a nation wide health care system, for BCBS,
implementing automated benefit documents, it fell on deaf ears.
The potential for sales of over 200 A/UX systems wasn't good enough.
*** And we talked to Apple's person in charge of health care customers!
Then, to top it off!!! I still don't have a 1.1 upgrade!
I see people on the net every day who got 1.1 new, but those
who purchased 1.0 are still waiting. Thanks for the support Apple!
Moral of the story is:
If you want to develop for A/UX, you're on your own!
In Apple's defense, I must say the people who worked the A/UX hotline
and other A/UX technical people at Apple bend over backwards! No question.
But the marketing people are voiding that effort daily!
Disclaimer: You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say will be used against you.phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) (05/20/89)
Well, judging from his signature line, probably the only thing that John Gilmore and I may agree upon is the second amendment. :-) :-) >Apple's corporate line is solidly against Grasshopper, since >Grasshopper sells NeWS, the Sun window system, PostScript on the >screen, etc, on Apple hardware. I am one of three partners in Grasshopper. John, I don't know how to put this, but the Apple "corporate entities" have never even HEARD of Grasshopper, much less be "against" Grasshopper. If you think you have reason to believe that some individual at Apple isn't treating you the way you think, let me know in private and I'll go speak to them. To be definitive, Apple does NOT have a corporate line against UNIX or Grasshopper. John Sculley himself was a major voice in saying "let there be UNIX" at Apple. >Where are the Apple ads for A/UX? Where are the promotions? The computer >stores with A/UX in the window (or even on the showroom floor!)? > >Another area is that Apple will provide mailing lists for developers to >sell to MacOS users, but not to A/UX users. The only way we have found >to locate A/UX users is by watching who posts to the net! Apple won't >tell us about the customers, and won't tell the customers about us. >They won't even tell us what computer stores are authorized to sell A/UX. >Finding 1,500 needles in a worldwide haystack is more than we can do by >ourselves. Well, I sure would like TV commercials for A/UX on prime time. Apple makes (~) more Macintoshes in a DAY than SUN makes workstations in a MONTH (assuming SUN runs the their factory 7 days a week). The big majority of those Macintoshes are not A/UX, so guess where the ad budgets go? Anyway, we CAN be much better on mailing lists, lists of dealers, etc. and we in Engineering do speak up about it. Let's agree to disagree if so, and leave the net bandwidth to the fun technical issues. Throw darts at pictures of marketing people if it feels good ... +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Philip K. Ronzone, Apple Computer, 10440 Bubb Rd, MS 58A, Cupertino, CA 95014| |{amdahl,decwrl,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft,...}!apple!phil | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | All "IMHOs" disclaimed and copyrighted. | Self defense is a human right ... | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (05/20/89)
In article <6408@oxtrap.UUCP>, time@oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres) writes: [quoting John Gilmore's recent tirades about A/UX] > Apple has made obtaining A/UX one of the most difficult prospects > a Macintosh owner faces. I am still amazed at the EFFORT it took [...] As much of an A/UX bigot as I am :-), this indeed seems to be true, and I'd even say that it can be phrased even more strongly: Apple's marketing people do not understand A/UX, and therefore don't understand why someone would want to buy it unless it is specified on a bid. This seems to extend to many of the people running the developer programs as well. Unfortunately, the people who read the net aren't the ones that need convincing (Phil, for example, seems pretty clear about things :-)). There does seem to be a growing amount of internal "evangelism" for A/UX, which I find heartening. The federal sales force in particular seems to be catching on fast, and there are growing signs of life elsewhere in the company. Even so, despite Apple's slogan of "one person, one computer," there don't yet seem to be very many people at Apple that understand that there is a reasonable single-quantity market out here; all of the A/UX marketing direction seems to be towards large installations, such as the governement, universities, and so on. It takes a while, though, and Apple still is a little new at the UNIX game... Myself, I think an SE/30 with A/UX 1.1 would make a *hot* little personal computer... -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.UUCP> InterCon Systems Corporation -- This posting is my opinion, not my employer's, even if the two do happen to coincide.
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (05/20/89)
In article <31123@apple.Apple.COM> phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes: >Let's agree to disagree if so, and leave the net bandwidth to the fun >technical issues. Throw darts at pictures of marketing people if it feels >good ... No, I disagree. If A/UX isn't being marketed properly, it's a legitimate issue for discussion. It's hard to imagine that there isn't a program similar to Sun's "Catalyst" program which encourages and promotes 3rd party software development. You could help by passing on these discussions to the marketing people responsible for the decisions. Throwing darts at the marketing folks isn't quite as constructive. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu
michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) (05/20/89)
In article <31123@apple.apple.com> phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes: > >Well, I sure would like TV commercials for A/UX on prime time. Apple makes >(~) more Macintoshes in a DAY than SUN makes workstations in a MONTH (assuming >SUN runs the their factory 7 days a week). > >The big majority of those Macintoshes are not A/UX, so guess where the ad >budgets go? Let me get this straight. Apple is selling lots of Non-A/UX Macs, and nowhere near as many A/UX systems. So they're plowing the advertising bux into Non-A/UX Macs and NOT into A/UX. Say WHAT? Hasn't corporate heard of dimishing returns? Or positive feedback? Or self-fulfilling prophecies? I thought a primary purpose of advertising was to let people know there was something to buy, and part of the development budget for each new product was a product-introduction ad campaign. I haven't seen even even one burst of A/UX ads, which makes me a sucker for the "A/UX is just for procurement check boxes" story. I suspect others are in the same boat. You might want to use the above arguments to shake loose some more ad money. But if the budget makers are stuck in the mindset of throwing the ad money where the sales are already good, try calculating the sales/advertising dollar ratio for MacSystemFinder versus MacA/UX. Good Luck! - - - - - - - - - - If you only shoot what you meant to shoot, you've got all the gun control you need. - - - - - - - - - -
rolfe@w3vh.UU.NET (Rolfe Tessem) (05/20/89)
In article <30843@apple.Apple.COM> phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes: > >TELL US WHAT YOU NEED. WE LISTEN. O.K., we don't have infinite manpower and >could do it all, but we listen. > OK, a very simple request, and one I made several months ago. Just post a list of MacOS software that runs under A/UX 1.1. After all, the major selling point of A/UX is it's ability to access the Toolbox and therefore run MacOS applications. The unwillingness to reveal what applications run on your hardware *does* boggle the mind and lends credence to several of the assertions that John Gilmore makes. FYI, I just bought two more 030 Apple machines this week from the largest Apple dealer in Manhattan. As far as can be determined, they have never heard of A/UX. I would *like* to get a machine at my company up and running under A/UX, if only as a mail and news gateway, but I'm sure not going to do it without some information. Rolfe Tessem Lucky Duck Productions New York City -- UUCP: uunet!w3vh!rolfe | Rolfe Tessem INTERNET: rolfe@w3vh.uu.net | P.O. Box 793 AMPRNET: rolfe@pc.w3vh.ampr.org [44.44.0.2]| Great Barrington, MA 01230
michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) (05/21/89)
In article <419@w3vh.uu.net> rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) writes: >In article <30843@apple.Apple.COM> phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) writes: >> >>TELL US WHAT YOU NEED. WE LISTEN. O.K., we don't have infinite manpower and >>could do it all, but we listen. > >OK, a very simple request, and one I made several months ago. Just post a >list of MacOS software that runs under A/UX 1.1. After all, the major >selling point of A/UX is it's ability to access the Toolbox and therefore run >MacOS applications. I have seen this suggestion before, with a reply from an Apple person giving downside reasons. As I recall, the main points were liability exposure for false advertising if the third-party software didn't perform, and exposure to accusations of playing favorites from those not included on the list. Seems to me this approach would work. (Phil: Try this on your lawyers and see what they say.) Publish a list in two parts, thus: The following Apple applications are compatible with A/UX v1.1 and are supported by Apple: - Foo - Multi-bar - Mac-baz The vendors of the following products claim A/UX v1.1 compatibility. Apple does not warrant their claims. - Blah-windows v1.2 and later. - Blort-paint v2.3 and later. - Etc. (Apple does not support third-party software. Users should contact the third-party vendor for support. Apple will accept user reports of gross malfunction of third-party software on this list, especially malfunction causing damage to system or user files other than those associated with the third-party product in question. Apple does not warrant third-party software on this list to be free of such bugs, and does not promise to investigate all such reports.) (Third parties are invited to contact Apple for procedures for inclusion on this list.) Then: - Include their product if they send you a copy that launches successfully. (Make it clear that Apple gets one usage license as part of the deal.) - Pull it if users complain it eats their disk and you can replicate the problem, or if you can't test the claim because of product problems (such as copy protection). - Don't bother with further testing. - Don't bother with applications that look hard to test. - Don't bother with applications that don't look big sellers, unless they might appear to compete with an Apple product. If an apple programmer expects the program to be useful for his own work, he is also a "user", and can report bugs. This is an additional justification for testing some programs extensively and others not at all. By the time supporting such a list becomes a resource drain, you're over the hump, and can drop the ads if the expense isn't justified. Meanwhile, it gets you a free copy of most major third-party products, which you can use as test instruments to separate A/UX bugs from application bugs, or to be sure a new release doesn't break a major application. think it'll fly? michael@xanadu.COM
michael@xanadu.COM (Michael McClary) (05/21/89)
In article <fOlrc#1p0oJt=michael@xanadu.COM> michael@xanadu.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes: > >Seems to me this approach would work. > [suggestion for Apple ad, including...] > > The vendors of the following products claim A/UX v1.1 compatibility. > Apple does not warrant their claims. > > - Blah-windows v1.2 and later. > - Blort-paint v2.3 and later. > - Etc. > > (Apple does not support third-party software. Users should contact > the third-party vendor for support. Apple will accept user reports > of gross malfunction of third-party software on this list, especially > malfunction causing damage to system or user files other than those > associated with the third-party product in question. Apple does not > warrant third-party software on this list to be free of such bugs, > and does not promise to investigate all such reports.) > > (Third parties are invited to contact Apple for procedures for > inclusion on this list.) > >Then: > - Include their product if they send you a copy that launches successfully. > (Make it clear that Apple gets one usage license as part of the deal.) > - Pull it if users complain it eats their disk and you can replicate the > problem, or if you can't test the claim because of product problems (such > as copy protection). > - Don't bother with further testing. > - Don't bother with applications that look hard to test. > - Don't bother with applications that don't look big sellers, unless they > might appear to compete with an Apple product. On second thought, if you cut it down to: (Apple does not support third-party software, nor does it warrant third-party software on this list to be free of malfunctions which might cause damage to system or user files. Users of third-party software should contact the vendor for support.) you wouldn't need to test it at all, and you could STILL make them send you a copy in case you wanted to test it later.
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (05/22/89)
One comment that John Gilmore makes certainly stands out louder than any quibbling over interpretation of facts and numbers: Where are the A/UX advertisements? I've never seen one tho I might have missed it. Someone at work is considering buying an A/UX system (he likes MacOS stuff and figures this would be a comfortable way for him to get into Unix.) I'm (now) going to make a condition of that purchase that he (or anyone) show me a few A/UX ads. I surely can't take the product any more seriously than Apple does. Such a large company advertises what they plan to sell and support, it indicates a minimal commitment to product. I've been burned like this before, new product lines which millions were being spent on internally by major companies but were not advertised. To a one they died and I was stuck with an instant dinosaur, no matter how inherently attractive the box was it quickly had to be disposed of or ignored (no support, no software, no upgrades etc.) I ain't falling for that trick again. -- -Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die There's nothing more terrifying to hardware vendors than satisfied customers.
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (05/22/89)
>I have seen this suggestion before, with a reply from an Apple person >giving downside reasons. As I recall, the main points were liability >exposure for false advertising if the third-party software didn't >perform, and exposure to accusations of playing favorites from those >not included on the list. Argh, that's like saying they don't want to try to sell A/UX because they'd have to pay income taxes on all the money they'd make. Every major computer company I know of provides lists of products they believe work with their systems. They can either spend some money to verify that the products really work or disclaim that they do any such checking (which of course lessens the value of the recommendation, but doesn't open them to legal consequences unless there was WILLFUL attempt to defraud, such as claiming they have tested its suitability when in fact they haven't.) Simply collating and repeating the claims of the sources does not transfer liability. Sun, DEC, IBM etc salespeople love to hand you their third-party product catalogs the first time they meet you. It seems to me even Apple does this with MacOS. And *every* company plays favorites (or, more precisely, excludes non-favorites, show me some Emulex recommendations from DEC, Parity or Trimarchi recommendations from Sun or Amdahl recommendations from IBM!) That's not sue-able as long as they make no claims that they will include everyone and anyone, and they never do ("mumble reserves the right to refuse...") Maybe Apple's position on this is being misrepresented here. -- -Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die There's nothing more terrifying to hardware vendors than satisfied customers.
phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) (05/23/89)
In article <3291@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >No, I disagree. If A/UX isn't being marketed properly, it's a legitimate >issue for discussion. O.K. Steve is right. That is what this group is for. So much for ducking the issues that are harder for us software enigineering types to answer ... :-) +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Philip K. Ronzone, Apple Computer, 10440 Bubb Rd, MS 58A, Cupertino, CA 95014| |{amdahl,decwrl,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft,...}!apple!phil | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | All "IMHOs" disclaimed and copyrighted. | Self defense is a human right ... | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (nghiem) (05/25/89)
> I need there to be more than 1500 machines to sell to, and a way to find them. > > Correction or corroboration welcome. Any other A/UX developers on the net? First, I think Apple has done well with A/UX, considering that there are only about 1500 machines out there--probably not a huge profit making enterprise for Apple. Second, in my opinion, A/UX has far less problems than AIX/AOS--read comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt sometimes. People have had huge problems with the RT, and there are ten's of thousands of these clunkers out there. I too would like to see improvements. I have had my share of problems getting somethings to work. But I and my colleages have had much worse problems dealing with the IBM-RT. Considering the size difference between IBM and Apple, Apple is not doing too bad. It should be clear, especially around the Universities, that true BSD compatibility is a must. Most of the problems that I have noted and that other people have complained about, whether on the II and especially on the RT is that someone has a standard BSD application, for example Gnu-Emacs, Xwindows, or the standard C-kermit distribution that is simply a b%^&% to get to run on a machine that is not a Sun or a Vax; or that someone has an established network and they cannot get NFS or telnet or rlogin to work with the existing Suns, Vaxes, and HP's . While it seems that Apple has been able to address this problem for the most part, IBM with their AOS for the RT had not been able to master this problem with the latest release of Emacs and Xwindows and they had problems telnet and NFS with their latest version of AIX. Quality is a very big concern for everybody. The new Mac's seem to be victims of cost cutting. While the new 3.5" Quantums HD40's are noticibly faster than the original 5.25" Quantums HD40, I have had three of the 3.5's seize within the warranty period. I've noted complaints about the new mouse that are distributed with the new Mac's as well. I've noted a slight divergence on the screens of our two new Apple RGB monitors and noted complaints and experienced the heat and the burning semi-conductor smell that eminate from the tops of these new monitors, but not the older Apple RGB monitors. Quality control should be significant for A/UX as well. It is EXTREMELY frustrating to spend a whole morning assisting a colleague attempting to filter unwanted characters from a MacOS file that has been read to AUX when, in the man page, someone has left out extremely significant quotations that surround the character to be filtered. But, ever try to use the man page in AIX?--you have to BUY the man pages separate from the AIX product. nghiem standard disclaimer
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (05/27/89)
Before I step into the furnace, I just want to say that I've just sunk a fair
amount of money into a large A/UX system, and I did so with my eyes open- I
know what I'm getting into, and I don't intend to bitch about lack of support
for A/UX once I start getting into trouble... I'll just do it now :-)
There are a few things that really bother me about A/UX, and some of them
have already been mentioned (by Amanda Walker and Tim Endres). But despite
the admirable support of various Unix features, and a fairly nifty merging
of System V with BSD, there are two items in particular that bug me:
1) Where is FFS??? The A/UX side has been around for over a year, but SASH
et. al. need to be rewritten. I know this is lots of work, but it's
really important!
2) When is the porting base going to be moved to SVR3? There are some very
significant problems with SVR2, in particular with serial line control
and modems. These problems are apparently fixed in R3.
Oh- there is one other problem. There is no standard way of talking to a tape
drive. You can buy the Irwin drives, which are very nice, but why aren't there
standard drivers for the three typical backup devices available for the Mac?
Three drivers is all it takes: One for the Teac 60, one for the DC2000, and
one for the Tandberg 150. How seriously can we take a system that can't be
backed up?
At least it's beginning to look like we'll see some serious hardware out of
Apple this year. The new Macs might well come close to the new Sun and Apollo
030 machines. This will finally correct the other great flaw in A/UX, which
was that it didn't have a really powerful box to run on. One down, three
to go. :-)
---
Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
alexis@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (last resort)dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (05/27/89)
In article <2094@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: >2) When is the porting base going to be moved to SVR3? There are some very > significant problems with SVR2, in particular with serial line control > and modems. These problems are apparently fixed in R3. There may be a lot of good reasons to switch from Vr2 to Vr3 (pardon me if they escape me right now), but this isn't one of them. If it wasn't obvious, the low-level device drivers for the Mac II aren't provided by AT&T, and anyway, anything not working in A/UX should be able to be fixed without an upgrade to Vr3. I would suspect that any problem with serial lines is a peculiarity of the Unisoft/Apple implementation. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu
ron@motmpl.UUCP (Ron Widell) (05/28/89)
In article <3387@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: -In article <2094@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: ->2) When is the porting base going to be moved to SVR3? There are some very -> significant problems with SVR2, in particular with serial line control -> and modems. These problems are apparently fixed in R3. ----------^^^^^^------- Note this! - -There may be a lot of good reasons to switch from Vr2 to Vr3 (pardon me -if they escape me right now), but this isn't one of them. If it wasn't -obvious, the low-level device drivers for the Mac II aren't provided by -AT&T, and anyway, anything not working in A/UX should be able to be fixed -without an upgrade to Vr3. I would suspect that any problem with serial -lines is a peculiarity of the Unisoft/Apple implementation. - --- -Steve Dyer -dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer -dyer@arktouros.mit.edu Sorry, but IMHO, this is a very good reason for moving from Release 2 to Release 3. Prior to Release 3, you had to do some very kludgy hacking to get dial-in/dial-out on the same line. It was not pretty and is an administrative hassle. With the advent of uugetty on Release 3, it's a very simple task. Regards, -- Ron Widell, Field Applications Eng. |UUCP: {...}mcdchg!motmpl!ron Motorola Semiconductor Products, Inc., |Voice:(612)941-6800 9600 W. 76th St., Suite G | I'm from Silicon Tundra, Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 -3718 | what could I know?