morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) (05/04/91)
My apologies if these questions have been asked before, but how many machines are currently running one of the growing number of flavours of Mach? Who currently supplies Mach? I can think of CMU, Mt Xinu, Next, Encore?, DEC, and OSF. Did I miss any? HP and IBM are advertising to varying degrees that they will be shipping OSF/1-based OSes. Anyone know when? Is anyone aware of other vendors? I gather from the ACE announcement that SCO is joing the OSF camp. The article I read was kind of ambiguous as to how much of the OSF/1 kernel SCO will utilize. Does anyone have any details on that? If you have numbers, estimates, or wags (wild-assed-guesses) for any or all of my questions, please let me know. Reply by email. I will summarize on request. Thanks. -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail: morse@quark.mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | quark.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
breck@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Liam Breck) (05/04/91)
morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes: >I gather from the ACE announcement that SCO is joing the OSF camp. >The article I read was kind of ambiguous as to how much of the OSF/1 >kernel SCO will utilize. Does anyone have any details on that? Digital Review of 15 April '91 reported that DEC had outsourced Unix development to SCO. The article says DEC "has canceled its plans to develop its own OSF/1-based Unix operating system, provided all of its OSF/1 source code to The Santa Cruz Operation and announced that it will license an OSF/1 operating system from SCO as its future Unix system." No details about how much Mach will be in SCO's OSF, how this effort will affect the OSF standard or whether OSF plans to upgrade to Mach 3.0 in OSF/2. -- Liam Breck breck@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu
ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May4.165329.25624@risky.ecs.umass.edu> breck@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Liam Breck) writes: > > No details about how much Mach will be in SCO's OSF, how >this effort will affect the OSF standard or whether OSF plans to >upgrade to Mach 3.0 in OSF/2. > Two things: 1) You can't do OSF/1 without Mach. They are one in the same. 2) No one, especially OSF, has said much of anything about OSF/2. The implication that OSF will or must go to Mach 3.0 in OSF/2 is pure speculation, and spreading such rumours is at best irresponsible. Indeed, OSF has mentioned several posibilities, most notably going with an Ameoba-like kernel down the road. Why don't we worry about getting a solid OSF/1 release before we start speculating about the Next Generation.... -- ken seefried iii "I'll have what the gentleman ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu on the floor is having..."
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/07/91)
>I gather from the ACE announcement that SCO is joing the OSF camp. >The article I read was kind of ambiguous as to how much of the OSF/1 >kernel SCO will utilize. One would hope they're picking up more than just the kernel - there's a lot more to an OS, especially a modern OS, than just the kernel. The OSF/1 program loader, for instance, runs in user mode, as does the run-time loader in SunOS 4.x and S5R4....
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/07/91)
>1) You can't do OSF/1 without Mach. They are one in the same.
The first statement doesn't necessarily imply the second, if in the
second you mean "one and the same". If OSF/1 has stuff in it that Mach,
as it comes from CMU, doesn't, the first statement would be true but the
second would be false....awhitton@bnr.ca (Alan Whitton) (05/07/91)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > >1) You can't do OSF/1 without Mach. They are one in the same. > > The first statement doesn't necessarily imply the second, if in the > second you mean "one and the same". If OSF/1 has stuff in it that Mach, > as it comes from CMU, doesn't, the first statement would be true but the > second would be false.... I agree with Guy. I was at an OSF symposium and the authentication suite (Authentication Environment Specification) does not specifically mention Mach. I in fact asked, "Does this mean, you need not have Mach to be certified as an OSF/1 compliant OS?", and the response I got back was "Yes, you don't need Mach to be OSF compliant". Cheers, Alan Whitton -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- BNR Ottawa Disclaimer: "This is only my opinion" BITNET: awhitton@bnr.ca OR UUCP: ...uunet!bnrgate!forum!awhitton
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (05/09/91)
>I in fact asked, "Does this mean, you need not have Mach to be >certified as an OSF/1 compliant OS?", and the response I got back was >"Yes, you don't need Mach to be OSF compliant". Well, to be fair, as I understand it, the term "OSF/1" may refer both to a specification and to an implementation; no, you don't need Mach to be compliant with the specification, but the implementation of that specification that you get from OSF is based on Mach, and may be the easiest way to get a system compliant with the specification. (It's sort of like the SVID and System V; you don't *need* AT&T's code to be SVID-compliant, but the easiest way to be SVID-compliant may be to use it.) So, while an OSF/1-compliant system may not be based on Mach, an OSF/1 system - in the sense of a system built from OSF's code - is based on, among other things, Mach.
sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May7.163912.615@bwdls61.bnr.ca>, awhitton@bnr.ca (Alan Whitton) writes: > guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > > >1) You can't do OSF/1 without Mach. They are one in the same. > > > > The first statement doesn't necessarily imply the second, if in the > > second you mean "one and the same". If OSF/1 has stuff in it that Mach, > > as it comes from CMU, doesn't, the first statement would be true but the > > second would be false.... > > I agree with Guy. I was at an OSF symposium and the authentication suite > (Authentication Environment Specification) does not specifically mention > Mach. I in fact asked, "Does this mean, you need not have Mach to be > certified as an OSF/1 compliant OS?", and the response I got back was > "Yes, you don't need Mach to be OSF compliant". Without wishing to act as the official OSF spokesman, perhaps I can help clear a few things up. If you use the source of OSF/1 as supplied by OSF to create your OSF/1 system you most certainly will have the Mach kernel in there. OSF/1 and Mach are not the same. OSF/1 contains the Mach kernel but very little else from Mach. If you got Mach 2.5 from CMU, beyond the Mach kernel it would bear little ressemblance to OSF/1 (other than due to the fact that the rest of both kernels have a common heritage). You may implement your system to OSF/1 interfaces without Mach and still call it OSF/1 compliant if all the required interfaces and there semantics are supported. These do not include the Mach interfaces (which is where the confusion seems to be stemming from). I hope this helps. Simon. Simon Patience Open Software Foundation Phone: +33-76-63-48-72 Research Institute FAX: +33-76-51-05-32 2 Avenue De Vignate Email: sp@gr.osf.org 38610 Gieres, France uunet!gr.osf.org!sp