Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!quokka!quirk From: quirk@quokka.rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk) Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k Subject: Re: Open Hardware Message-ID: <1339@dg.dg.com> Date: 26 Apr 91 21:48:53 GMT References: <16@metran.UUCP> <1991Apr26.140041.27717@webo.dg.com> Sender: root@dg.dg.com Reply-To: quirk@quokka.rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 89 I think that Jay has misinterpreted the intentions of the 88open, and grossly underestimated the size of the task involved in producing a Shrink-wrapped UNIX for 88K systems that would serve the great bulk of users. What sets the 88K apart from the other architectures is: 1. a highly scalable multiprocessor architecture 2. the lack of an I/O bus standard 3. an absolute commitment to binary compatibility over multiple system platforms, over versions of UNIX, and over generations of the chip architecture. 4. a working certification process for binary compatibility. 5. a binary compatibility standard based on international and de facto standards. The first attribute attracts systems vendors like Data General who believe that customers like to grow their systems painlessly over time without changing architectures. It's also a boon to vendors because it minimizes the effort to manage a broad product line. The second attribute attracts system vendors like Data General who can apply their systems design skills to build balanced systems at all levels of scale. Using standard buses one could use SCSI and EISA at the low-end, VME in the mid-range, VME-64 higher-up and maybe Futurebus+ or SCI at the top end. All these systems would be open, would have access to appropriate I/O peripherals for their performance characteristics, and would not be constrained by a bus decision targetted at the desktop. All that is necessary for user applications to migrate across these platforms is a workable binary standard. The third attribute is the glue that binds the 88open together and makes us potentially very large. While it is true that Sun, HP and IBM lead us in market share, it is also true that Sun was there a long time before us, and HP and IBM are very large, resourceful companies. We count amongst our membership some large and some resourceful companies who have not yet announced their products. The fourth attribute, a working certification process for binary compatibility on very different hardware platforms, is something MIPS has failed dismally to achieve (due in large part to DEC's desire to be proprietary); IBM and HP are not interested (having architectures no-one else has licensed); and Sun has yet to deliver one. The PC of course has no binary standard certification process, and you can never be sure whether your binary will work with all vendors' PCs. That's because there is no spec for the hardware, and no certification process for well-behaved programs under DOS or Windows. The VGA "standard" is a joke (you've got to know which chip is used in the graphics card), and the ever-changing memory model and windowing interface have caused lots of big software companies lots of grief. The 88K BCS of course is based on the SVID, POSIX 1003.1, BSD UNIX, X Windows, sockets, and TLI to date, and is evolving. The only other shrink-wrap "standard" is DOS & Windows and that's based on nothing. The SunOS binary standard (for Sparc) is not based on POSIX, so if you want to run your existing V.3 binary on a V.4 SunOS platform (when it eventually ships), your system calls are going to be trapped by an intermediate layer of runtime molasses that correctly maps your V.3 process behavior onto the POSIX model. Sun estimates this will cost you a 10% performance hit. You can of course avoid this by buying new compilers and building a new executable, but it won't run on the old systems (a real drag of you're in the business of selling shrink-wrap software). Now if you insist that 88open is backward in providing a standard HW interface so that software vendors can produce shrik-wrap UNIX operating systems for all 88K systems I would simply observe the following: 1. The presence of a perceived open HW standard in the PC has not resulted in any significant operating system offerings apart from DOS (DrDOS included). 2. The market for alternative, totally compatible, operating systems on anyone's box is minimal. The software market is for applications, and to a very small extent I/O drivers. This is where the 88K could benefit from an instantiation of the SV.4 DDI/DKI standard, once USL has revised it to meet the needs of multi-processor and secure systems vendors. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Quirk Internet: quirk@quokka.webo.dg.com Data General Corporation Phone: +1 (508)898 4679 3400 Computer Drive Fax: +1 (508)898 2684 Westboro, MA, USA 01581