nlane@well.sf.ca.us (Nathan D. Lane) (05/03/91)
Our company has just started selling Unix software and the hardware to run it on due to my insistence and unix experience - we chose Esix primarily because of support policies; but that's not the point of this. To Unix vendors: Is there such a thing as generic software? Isn't that the point of unix - it should run on nearly anything. I have been talking with numerous vendors (18 so far) who basically say "we don't support Esix;" - typically, for PCs they only support SCO. Experience 1: They don't support Esix, but they run under Esix - Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect both run well under Esix Experience 2: Those packages are very DOS-minded - 8 character filenames, dot, three - uppercase and they yank the whole system and don't support things I'm used to - like X (especially dis- appointing for Lotus - no graphics!) I must say that there are standards for Unix software - the standard set by AT&T - not SCO, not Interactive, not Esix. Why don't vendors adhere to the standard? Only straying when ABSOLUTELY necessary? They'd be happy with a bigger market, we'd be happy with more software. btw- Realworld 6.0 also works under Esix, but no color in X-windows. ---| | |---stepped off the soap-box... -Nathan Lane Digital Technology Service, Santa Barbara, CA nlane@well.sf.ca.us
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/04/91)
nlane@well.sf.ca.us (Nathan D. Lane) writes: > To Unix vendors: > Is there such a thing as generic software? Isn't that the point > of unix - it should run on nearly anything. > I have been talking with numerous vendors (18 so far) who basically say > "we don't support Esix;" - typically, for PCs they only support SCO. Yes, there is "generic" software. The whole 386 UNIX marketplace has been somewhat careless about this. The situation is complicated from several directions: - Application vendors may not have the understanding of what is vendor-specific and what's common to all UNIX systems. In any event, they probably don't have the resources to test their software on all flavors of UNIX. This is messy. - Some OS vendors may encourage the perception that an app will only run on their version of UNIX. In fact, they could work with an app vendor to encourage use of facilities specific to their OS, thus locking the app to one UNIX variant. I don't know if this is done, but it's certainly possible. - In V.3, there are some things which should have been standardized but weren't (such as local X client-server interface). Seems to me it would help if there were a baseline UNIX system the app vendors could test against, such that if their software ran on the base system it ought to run on any UNIX. I don't know of anyone taking this approach. > I must say that there are standards for Unix software - the standard > set by AT&T - not SCO, not Interactive, not Esix. Why don't vendors > adhere to the standard? Only straying when ABSOLUTELY necessary? As far as I can tell, most vendors DO adhere to the basic UNIX set of facilities as it comes from AT&T; it's just that this base is not well- understood and well distinguished from vendor-specific extensions. Why don't vendors adhere more closely and stray less? Because they want to sell their software, so they extend it in ways they believe will make it more valuable to end-users than their competition's product. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May3.203336.6532@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >Why don't vendors adhere more closely and stray less? Because they want >to sell their software, so they extend it in ways they believe will make >it more valuable to end-users than their competition's product. As I see it, what happens is that a large application customer says, "Hey, we can do *this* under DOS, but not under generic *nix. If we can do it under foobar's 9.2 foonix, we will port out rather major application to foonix and you will sell lots of systems that way!" Thus, mapping in the screen, scancode terminals, scancode mode on the console, and a host of other things. And, of course, every vendor does this, and sometimes several of them do the same thing for several application writers, and (of course) they all do it differently. No "evil," just that it's not common practice to call up your competitor and say, "Hey, we're planning on adding this feature, which will behave like this, and it gets used like this, why don't you add it too..." -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
brian@bjm.wimsey.bc.ca (Brian J. Murrell) (05/07/91)
nlane@well.sf.ca.us (Nathan D. Lane) writes: >Our company has just started selling Unix software and the hardware to >run it on due to my insistence and unix experience - we chose Esix >primarily because of support policies; but that's not the point of this. >I must say that there are standards for Unix software - the standard >set by AT&T - not SCO, not Interactive, not Esix. Why don't vendors ^^^^ I surely hope that when you say "the standard set by AT&T" you mean the various open systems consortiums to which AT&T belongs, and not AT&T the single. My point here is that why should one company get to set the standards by which we all live and compute by? LONG LIVE OPEN SYSTEMS!! >adhere to the standard? Only straying when ABSOLUTELY necessary? >They'd be happy with a bigger market, we'd be happy with more software. -- __________ ___ ____ _________________________________________________ / / / /| /| (604)520-3808 uunet!van-bc!bjm!brian /--: / / | / | New Westminster B.C. _______ /__/ /__/ / |/ | _________________________________________________
root@bjm.wimsey.bc.ca (0000-Admin(0000)) (05/07/91)
nlane@well.sf.ca.us (Nathan D. Lane) writes: >Our company has just started selling Unix software and the hardware to >run it on due to my insistence and unix experience - we chose Esix >primarily because of support policies; but that's not the point of this. >I must say that there are standards for Unix software - the standard >set by AT&T - not SCO, not Interactive, not Esix. Why don't vendors ^^^^ I surely hope that when you say "the standard set by AT&T" you mean the various open systems consortiums to which AT&T belongs, and not AT&T the single. My point here is that why should one company get to set the standards by which we all live and compute by? LONG LIVE OPEN SYSTEMS!! >adhere to the standard? Only straying when ABSOLUTELY necessary? >They'd be happy with a bigger market, we'd be happy with more software.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May07.023233.5012@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > just that it's not common practice to call up your competitor and say, "Hey, > we're planning on adding this feature, which will behave like this, and it > gets used like this, why don't you add it too..." How about getting someone to call up and say "hey, I want to buy a UNIX system for my bedroom, but I want to do so-and-so... do you do that?". If they say "yes", get a copy of their system and see how they do it. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May7.043649.12113@bjm.wimsey.bc.ca> brian@bjm.wimsey.bc.ca (Brian J. Murrell) writes: > I surely hope that when you say "the standard set by AT&T" you mean the > various open systems consortiums to which AT&T belongs, and not AT&T > the single. Well, I would say "I mean AT&T". > My point here is that why should one company get to set the standards > by which we all live and compute by? They invented it? > LONG LIVE OPEN SYSTEMS!! Are you in marketing? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"