thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/09/91)
In article <SCOTT.91May6134540@erick.gac.edu> scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: > > You'll also need Objective-C (this will eventually be availiable from > GNU on top of g++). I talked with StepStone a month ago about some stuff including exactly this. Objective-C as a PD language would help establish it more strongly. > How is the IBM RS6000 doing it? > > They licensed DPS from Adobe, Objective-C from StepStone, and NextStep > from NeXT. The obvious missing link is Mach - they simulate Mach > threads and the like via AIX stuff, which is one of the big complaints > people have (I guess that slows it down a bit, esp. for NextStep2.0). OSF is supposed to adopt Mach so I would anticipate a Mach AIX. I would have expected it to be here already, in fact. Does anyone know what is happening there? > Is code portable between the RS6000 and the NeXT boxes? > > Supposedly, it's pretty good. It is good. We developed a NeXTstep-like API for OpenWindows 2.0 XView (aka Open Look). 5000 LOC. With that it took hours to port substantial applications from NeXT to Sun. It is faster 'tween NeXT and RS/6000. > What vendors have licensed NeXTSTEP? > > IBM's the only one, I believe. Yep. I would hazard that until NeXTstep is selling 25% of all Unix GUIs that there will be no more buy-ins. What still puzzles me is the lack of people jumping into DPS. Does anyone know the license costs and arrangements? DEC was making a move; any word? Is Adobe limiting the adoption?
pfkeb@eanextm.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz) (05/09/91)
I can say something about the Mach AIX part of your questions. At the IBM Users meeting in February, IBM was showing an 9000 series mainframe running OSF/1 Mach in native mode (i.e. no VM/CMS). They also showed this at some meeting in Europe. They expected to be beta testing in year. So the IBM mainframe crew is already into OSF and Mach. I haven't heard anything about RS/6000 crew, but one can guess that are into it as well.
bedney@lanl.gov (Bill Edney) (05/10/91)
> OSF is supposed to adopt Mach so I would anticipate a Mach AIX. I would > have expected it to be here already, in fact. Does anyone know what is > happening there? From having talked to an IBM representative at a NeXT Developer's Camp, IBM is making another "brain-damaged" move. (Sorry for that Steveism). Even though they are a member of OSF and have licensed NeXTstep, they are going to continue to go with their own AIX kernel!! ("Too much investment of money in developing it", was the IBM rep's response.) This is part of the problem IBM is having in porting NeXTstep 2.0. The Workspace Manager in 2.0 relies heavily on Mach threads, which are not present in AIX. Now I hear that IBM is trying to fake Mach threads on top of the AIX kernel!! Why can't these people wake up and smell the coffee?! - Bill Edney - Los Alamos National Laboratory "I don't speak for my employer and they don't speak for me. Kind of a nice arrangement."
thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/10/91)
In article <23469@lanl.gov> bedney@lanl.gov (Bill Edney) writes: > From having talked to an IBM representative at a NeXT Developer's Camp, > IBM is making another "brain-damaged" move. (Sorry for that Steveism). > Even though they are a member of OSF and have licensed NeXTstep, they > are going to continue to go with their own AIX kernel!! ("Too much > investment of money in developing it", was the IBM rep's response.) > This is part of the problem IBM is having in porting NeXTstep 2.0. The > Workspace Manager in 2.0 relies heavily on Mach threads, which are not > present in AIX. Now I hear that IBM is trying to fake Mach threads on > top of the AIX kernel!! Why can't these people wake up and > smell the coffee?! Invested money is not necessarily smart money. AIX kernal (and non-Mach kernals in general) is sort of piggish. Putting something that is performance sensitive on top of it ... well ... IBM did invest a lot of money in NeXTstep licensing. I can't see that same investment in a kernal. If they did (reported over $10M in the press for NeXTstep) then the proper response would be to fire the OS team and go with Mach. If they did not then why throw away the NeXT investment? There must be more to it. Damaged brains could explain much. Mark R. Thomsen
objec-an@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;NJ40) (05/23/91)
Hi, I am interested in having a look at the GNU Objective-C compiler. Does anyone know what platforms it runs on, and where it can be obtained. Thanks Raja --------------------------------------------------------------- Raja Georges Pe'trakian rgp@euler.Berkeley.EDU ---------------------------------------------------------------