Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: In What Sense is Sun the "First" Open Systems Manufacturer? Message-ID: <2121.2750ebb9@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Date: 26 Nov 90 15:17:28 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov20.195623.28061@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2940@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Lines: 47 In article <2940@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: > In article <1990Nov20.195623.28061@Neon.Stanford.EDU> andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: > > | While they didn't have to be sued into doing it Sun, with SPARC, has > | done what IBM did decades ago with their 360/370 machines. Both allow > | others to produce hardware compatible systems. > > Where did you get the info? I didn't realize that IBM gave Amdahl and > the others the plans for their CPU and let them make it. Actually I > thought they were reverse engineered. I think a better word might be forward engineered. IBM set up an internal competition to design the next generation of System 360. There were something like thirteen teams in the competition. Gene Amdahl headed one of those teams. The products of about four of the teams were combined to get the architecture of System 370. Gene's was one of the four. He was an important IBM manager in bringing 370 to market. I got the impression reading industry rags at the time that he left because he thought the decision making process in IBM had created a competitive opportunity. (In other words, no more compromises, let's do it right this time.) Of course, Amdahl is big enough now to have hardening of the categories. >Does the license to manufacture > include the right to use the software, like SPARC? > > | In what sense is Sun "first", let alone "unique"? What is its equiv > | of the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin? Hint: disclosure via source > | code is convenient, but it isn't a guarantee of future compatibility. > | Considering the bugs in the distributed version, it isn't even a > | guarantee of current compatibility. > > Bear in mind the the TDB is intended to protect IBM, not benefit the > public. Not that it isn't useful, but it's not a gesture of goodwill. > The basic idea is that once IBM decides they can't make money by using > or licensing an idea, they tell the world, so no one else can patent it. > A cheap way to assure that if they ever do decide to use it they won't > have to pay for it. > -- > bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) > VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com