Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!sci.kun.nl!wn3.sci.kun.nl!ge
From: ge@wn3.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is programming still allowed?
Message-ID: <2524@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Date: 3 Dec 90 12:26:45 GMT
References: <8319@star.cs.vu.nl> <531@newave.UUCP> <2140@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: root@sci.kun.nl
Lines: 25

.In article <531@newave.UUCP>, john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
.> In article <8319@star.cs.vu.nl> sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren) writes:
.> > Is it reasonable to assume that if you buy computer hardware from a
.> > supplier that the information needed to program that hardware should be
.> > available to you?
.> 
.> NO, this is not a reasonable assumption.  Many systems are sold to perform
.> a specific task and the details of the implementation might be a strictly
.> held secret.  Another reason for keeping the implementation details secret
.> is to allow them to make changes or upgrades to the system without fear of
.> breaking existing applications.

There is only one way to solve this problem: vote with your budgets.
No specs, no sale. A machine without specs is not very useful for research,
so universities and research centers should buy elsewhere and of course
also explain to students why they buy elsewhere, so that those can later avoid
purchasing from companies with too many useless trade secrets. In casu SUN:
I wonder whether they will survive the loss of the research/university market.

Ge' Weijers
--
Ge' Weijers                                    Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,   (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge)
University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1         
6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands              tel. +3180652483 (UTC-2)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com