thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/11/91)
Chris Petrilli writes I might be able to address IBM and NextStep. It'll most likely never happen. IBM has said they are going to stay with the AIX kernel (ack!), and not go to Mach3 under OSF/1. NextStep 2.0 is VERY VERY reliant on the Mach kernel for speed, and simulating it on an AIX machine is VERY SLOW. It is bad on a RS/6000, imagine it on a 386. The best bet is Next being nice enough to give NextStep to the FSF, and let us run it on GNU (based on Mach3). One of the problems we have had with RIOS is that it is slow, when measured by us, for context switching. Putting software for UI (e.g., NeXTstep) that relies on context switches on top of a full-bloated UNIX kernal (AIX) and the problem is 'bad'. The '386 context switches a bit faster. But without commitment from IBM to make a wonderful NeXTstep on their platforms, I guess the portable- NeXT-as-PS/2 is unlikely to fly. NeXT give NeXTstep to FSF? This would be a wonderful, weird thing. How likely is this? NeXTstep is one of the technologies that NeXT has invested in that is superior to competition. It gives them a difference that is valuable to users. Giving such away would be a complex decision, I imagine, for NeXT. Mark R. Thomsen
petrilli@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/11/91)
In article <282AE226.3250@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) writes: NeXT give NeXTstep to FSF? This would be a wonderful, weird thing. How likely is this? NeXTstep is one of the technologies that NeXT has invested in that is superior to competition. It gives them a difference that is valuable to users. Giving such away would be a complex decision, I imagine, for NeXT. I would think the same thing, but when I spoke with someone from NeXT informally at a demo here at the University, the NeXT rep said the only stumbling block is Display Postscript. Ghostscript has 90% of the functionality and it wouldn't be hard to extend. It even handles Type 1 fonts as I recall. As to whether they would do it... if we had Ghostscript up and going 100%, I'de say it'de be a 50/50 chance. Chris Remember, tehy have already given teh FSF Objective-C, and have placed NetInfo out for public consumption. -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (05/11/91)
> In article <282AE226.3250@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark > R. Thomsen) writes: > NeXT give NeXTstep to FSF? This would be a wonderful, weird thing. > How likely is this? / comp.sys.next / petrilli@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) / May 10'91/ > if we had > Ghostscript up and going 100%, I'de say it'de be a 50/50 chance. But NeXT doesn't have to give it to FSF. It can simply distribute it under the GNU General Public License. And I agree that this would be a shrewd move, especially paying off when GNU the system becomes reality. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
petrilli@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/11/91)
Jacob Gore writes: But NeXT doesn't have to give it to FSF. It can simply distribute it under the GNU General Public License. To me it's the same thing in reality. It means free distribution. If you put the FSF in control, then you have a good chance of usurping XWindows as GUI of choice for GNU. Otherwise, who knows... I know which one I'de choos. :-) And I agree that this would be a shrewd move, especially paying off when GNU the system becomes reality. So... let's all do something. Everyone write a letter to NeXT (or contact your CC or Rep for the area) and tell them how this would benefit them as well as humanity. Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (05/12/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91May11113913@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >So... let's all do something. Everyone write a letter to NeXT (or >contact your CC or Rep for the area) and tell them how this would >benefit them as well as humanity. > Good idea. I suggest emailing their Director of Higher Education, since he is the liason to educational interests. His address is Ronald_Weissman@NeXT.COM I'm sending him a brief note right now. Perhaps if we focus on him, he'll present the issue to the appropriate managers (who are probably well insulated from us). -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)