bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) (05/02/91)
listen up NeXT... I haven't heard anything from IBM about a machine released with NeXT Step ( like maybe the RS6000 ). It seems to me either one of two things is happening: 1) IBM wants to release such a product, but NeXT is being a tightwad about their "official" agreement or 2) IBM is dilly dallying and NeXT is not waving the proverbial carrot in their faces, or reminding them what a great environment it is and how much users would love it. It seems to me there are no technical reasons for the delay; Display PostScript is already available and (from what I've heard) NeXT Step has been ported. Such a realease by IBM (no I'm not an IBM advocate, just the thought of a dark suit or a tie gives me a rash) would not only get self serving, quasi-informed journalists from Forbes of NeXT's back (or was she jumping on Jobs' back, my view of the mud pit was obscured) but it would provide an 'upscale' market for application that have been/are being/will be developed on the NeXT. It will also give other developers the extra push they needed to get into the NeXT application market. As much as NeXT/Jobs may want to 'make it on their own' without any 'help' from that <insert-four-letter-word> three letter word company, or leave them in the unenlightened past, IBM has enough momentum to stay arround for quite a while. It is apparent that IBM has recognized that users are going to demand ease of use and an intuitive interface (witnessed by that braindead product from MS on top of that braindead OS). It seems if IBM doesn't decide than NeXT Step should be supported on any of their machines, then, eventually, they'll end up developing and designing their own. This would not only be an enourmous waste of man power on IBM's part, but it would fragment the developer base. This would end up costing end users everywhere! What do you think net? What do you think NeXT? O.K. I`ll get off my soap box now and wait for someone to start spewing fire my way. -Bill Shirley
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May2.133857.21752@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) writes:
[Where's the IBM port of NeXTStep deleted]
This has already been discussed on the net. It's entirely up to IBM,
and I don't think they're interested. They will probably stick with
X Windows.
As for NeXT needing IBM, I beg to differ. It would speed up software
development a lot, but it isn't going to make or break NeXT. If NeXT
wants to increase their growth rate, NeXT year they need to both
reduce the price on the current machines, and introduce a fast $10,000
computer. If they can break into the <= $3000(retail) market next
year, and at the same time offer a $10,000 machine that screams, a lot
more people are going to become believers. For now, all they need to
do(IMHO) is convince a few more companies to develop software for the
NeXT. Quark, for example, was having second thoughts when I called
them about XPress.
-Mikefeasterd@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mickey Feaster) (05/02/91)
bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) writes: >I haven't heard anything from IBM about a machine released with NeXT Step >( like maybe the RS6000 ). Some months ago, IBM brought gave a RS6000 demonstration here. It looked like they were running X-windows, so I asked them if NeXT Step was also available for their workstation. They very quickly answered that yes, it was. However, they didn't seem interested in talking about it. It seems to be an option that is available if you specifically request it, but they're not going to bring it up otherwise. Anyone know why? Are there perhaps problems with their implementation? -- ------------------ Mickey Feaster feaster@ucs.indiana.edu Senior Systems Application Programmer (812) 855-9111 University Computing Services
ernest@cithep.caltech.edu (Ernest Prabhakar) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.150710.17939@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> feasterd@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mickey Feaster) writes: > bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) writes: > > >I haven't heard anything from IBM about a machine released with NeXT Step > >( like maybe the RS6000 ). > > It seems to be an option that is available if you specifically request it, > but they're not going to bring it up otherwise. Anyone know why? Are there > perhaps problems with their implementation? > In a word, yes. We (Caltech) have a ton of IBM RS/60000s, and we have ordered NeXTStep from IBM. The RS/6000, while an impressive machine, is fairly buggy. What's worse, it runs AIX, which is a) unstable, and b) less functional for IPC than Mach. NeXTStep 1.0 doesn't have color. NeXTStep 2.0 uses Mach heavily (note the threads in WorkSpace Manager). There are workarounds to fake Mach under AIX, but they are really slow. So IBM is faced with the choice of: a) Releasing a product less functional that NeXTs (1.0) b) Releasing a product that is slower (due to various kludges). Give the amount of flak they have gotten for their machines already, they apparently are reluctant to make themselves a bigger target. We, however, are continuing to pester them, and it seems likely there will be SOMETHING available in the next couple of months. I know a number of beta-sites exist; it is just a question of them having a technology level they aren't embarrased by. -- Ernest N. Prabhakar, Caltech High Energy Physics ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu CaJUN President "If we are out of our minds, it is for God." - II Cor 5:13a
dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu (Doug Boyce) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.150710.17939@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> feasterd@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mickey Feaster) writes: bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) writes: I haven't heard anything from IBM about a machine released with NeXT Step ( like maybe the RS6000 ). Some months ago, IBM brought gave a RS6000 demonstration here. It looked like they were running X-windows, so I asked them if NeXT Step was also available for their workstation. They very quickly answered that yes, it was. However, they didn't seem interested in talking about it. It seems to be an option that is available if you specifically request it, but they're not going to bring it up otherwise. Anyone know why? Are there perhaps problems with their implementation? Let's not forget that NeXTstep evolves around Mach. Any porting to another system that doesn't support objective-C, threads and other Mach'isms (2.? uses this more so that 1.?) will inherently be buggy or impossible to implement. If IBM really wants to hop on the NeXTstep bandwagon they may have to go Mach themselves. -- Doug Boyce dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu "Speedballs are interesting if you aren't the cannoneer doing the running." "Where's that Lotto ticket, I want a NeXT NoW!"
bb@math.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.150710.17939@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> feasterd@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mickey Feaster) writes: > Some months ago, IBM brought gave a RS6000 demonstration here. It > looked like they were running X-windows, so I asked them if NeXT Step > was also available for their workstation. They very quickly answered > that yes, it was. However, they didn't seem interested in talking > about it. It seems to be an option that is available if you > specifically request it, but they're not going to bring it up > otherwise. Anyone know why? Are there perhaps problems with their > implementation? How about: "it's embarassingly better than their mainstream X/Motif product/strategy"? or perhaps: "IBM is suffering from the not-invented-here syndrome"? or both? I've seen NextStep 2.0 and XR-something running on two different monitors on one RS/6000. Both scream. *I* didn't see any flaws with the NextStep, except for the lack of the software bundle that NeXT provides. -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
tgingric@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tyler S Gingrich) (05/03/91)
In article <74459@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu (Doug Boyce) writes: >In article <1991May2.150710.17939@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> feasterd@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Mickey Feaster) writes: > bill@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Bill Shirley) writes: > > I haven't heard anything from IBM about a machine released with NeXT Step > ( like maybe the RS6000 ). > > Some months ago, IBM brought gave a RS6000 demonstration here. It looked like > they were running X-windows, so I asked them if NeXT Step was also available > for their workstation. They very quickly answered that yes, it was. However, > they didn't seem interested in talking about it. It seems to be an option > that is available if you specifically request it, but they're not going to > bring it up otherwise. Anyone know why? Are there perhaps problems with their > implementation? > > >Let's not forget that NeXTstep evolves around Mach. Any porting to another >system that doesn't support objective-C, threads and other Mach'isms (2.? >uses this more so that 1.?) will inherently be buggy or impossible to implement. >If IBM really wants to hop on the NeXTstep bandwagon they may have to go >Mach themselves. > On the other hand, how many stations/cubes would be sold if they where 'Blue'?? I realize there is NO WAY that IBM could have put the NeXT system together (too much bureaucracy to move around), but what if NeXT made-em and IBM sold-em??? The real question is, If IBM sold Stations/Cubes would they EVER sell another PS/2 (or worse yet, a PS/2-OS/2 server)?? Tyler
n67786@cc.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen) (05/04/91)
In article <74459@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu (Doug Boyce) writes:
Let's not forget that NeXTstep evolves around Mach. Any porting to
another system that doesn't support objective-C, threads and other
Mach'isms (2.? uses this more so that 1.?) will inherently be buggy
or impossible to implement. If IBM really wants to hop on the
NeXTstep bandwagon they may have to go Mach themselves.
Objective-C certainly is not the main issue here--it can be ported on
any platform since it's not platform specific. Mach threads (or
lightweight processes as they are called elsewhere) can be implemented
in other operating systems besides Mach. And in deed have been. For
example SunOS has them. And if you have the source licence to your unix,
you can implement light weight processes (if not by yourself, by
others). NextStep seems to use mach threads intensively so it would
probably benefit of a OS where they are implemented. Mach on the other
hand is more of a generic kernel suitable for wide variety of operating
systems (not just unix).
--
Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology
n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europepfkeb@ebnextk.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz) (05/04/91)
I've not only seen NextStep on the RS/6000, I have had NextStep 1.0 on an RS/6000 since late last September. I've also ported my applications to the RS/6000. The port is certainly no worst then porting anything else from NeXT's BSD UNIX environment to IBM's AIX. This means that NextStep application kit is there, Objective-C is there, Display PostScript is there, and sufficient Mach emulation is there. I've even demonstrated my NextStep applications at IBM user group meetings and at IBM scientific center. From what we read in the news group, it seems NextStep 2.0 has been ported (I've not seen it myself). Thus, its distribution seems to be hung between the NeXT and IBM lawyers. What a shame.