Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu
From: pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Sun != Open Archtecture
Message-ID: <51860@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 17 Dec 90 03:12:34 GMT
References: <36911@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: urth.acsu.buffalo.edu

johnm@cup.portal.com (John - Madison) writes:
|Assertion:  Sun is retreating from the idea of Open Systems.
|- Sun has decided *not* to provide future versions of SunOS to clone
|makers.

sun asserts that the sparc compliance definition solves this problem.
if this is true (i.e. scd is as good as posix) why buy unix v rel. 4
from sun?

|- Sun has been aggressively unbundling software like the C compiler,
|OS improvements, and such.  Further, they *prohibit* you from buying
|the unbundled Sun products and running them on a clone.

this is unpleasant (i still have yet to carefully read a recent
software license). since they've suggested they'll soon completely
unbundle the compiler the question is: should cloners try to license the
compiler or use gnu?

[sun is using legalisms rather than technical superiority to get sales]
|If you want to learn the novel forms of
|competitive advantage that Sun is seeking, talk to Solborne or Auspex.

solbourne negotiated a contract with sun.  if they failed to do a good
enough job one can hardly blame sun.  (sun's current motto is: we enable
compatibles, we don't support them.)

i can't speak on the hardware issues but i'll check back in a year.
however one could compare sun with dec.

i could go on at length about this but i feel it more properly belongs
in alt.sys.sun or the info-solbourne mailing list (sorry no info-tatung et.al.).

-- 
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet)
opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.