Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: Open Hardware
Message-ID: <19@metran.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 91 20:30:51 GMT
References: <16@metran.UUCP> <1991Apr26.140041.27717@webo.dg.com> <1339@dg.dg.com>
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida
Lines: 135

[my post has generated a flurry of lengthy and intelligent email replies,
and all of them so far have been deservant of a similar response from me.
For all those who sent me email, please understand that I am not ignoring
you, it's just that I have limited time.  It's a minor fan-out problem.]

I am not sure what sort of tone will be read into any of this by the reader,
so at least let me say that I am not intending to be argumentative; I just
want to explain myself.

In article <1339@dg.dg.com>, quirk@quokka.rtp.dg.com (Peter Quirk) writes:
> 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.

I have been following 88open with varying levels of interest since the
88k was announced.  I understand that the main intention from the start
was to create a shrink-wrap applications software environment, but it's
just recently that I've been made fully aware that the hardware side was
let go.

I never said that a hardware standard would be easy, just worthwhile.

> What sets the 88K apart from the other architectures is:
>  5. a binary compatibility standard based on international and de facto 
>     standards.

Exists on MS-DOS, PC UNIX, and is under development by SPARC International.

>  1. a highly scalable multiprocessor architecture

Also included in the design of the 486.  SPARC International is coming
out with theirs soon, and so are the MIPS people.  The 88k was first,
and the multiprocessor support was designed in from the start, but you
can bet that the SPARC and MIPS people have been leafing through the
88000 User Manuals on occasion looking for ideas.

>  2. the lack of an I/O bus standard

Well, I would put that under the tablecloth and hope no one noticed! :-)

Seriously, I get your point (it allows versatility), but it also has
major limitations for third-party hardware vendors.

Even if there were an agreed-on standard, the 88k vendors would be able
to use whatever bus they needed; that particular system wouldn't pass
certification, but in that case, the vendor would use a nonstandard bus
to overcome a limitation of the standard one, and would be able to sell
it to the customer as a feature.  Just make sure the extra performance,
versatility or whatever is valuable enough to the customers to overcome
the added complications to them.

This issue would of course apply to the entire hardware standard, not
just the bus.

I am going to use a car analogy to try to bring this discussion down to
earth.  First, let me say that I am not trying to make every car manufacturer
in the world produce nothing but Ford Escorts.  I am thinking in terms of
parts.  When you go to the auto store to get spark plugs for your car, you
don't want to have to get a specific plug that only works on your car and
no one else's.  In that case, you would have to go to the parts department
at your dealer, and pay astronomical prices for them.

(Case in point: Data General charges $9000 for a 320 Mb SCSI drive.  It's
an OEM'd Micropolis drive, which I can get mailorder for about $2000.
Before I'm taken wrong, I think it is *excellent* that Data General will
allow a customer to just go out and buy and install their own Micropolis
drive, and will even support it afterwards!)

Now, there isn't just one "industry standard" spark plug.  There are a few
types.  Well, there are a number of them, actually, and each has its own
advantages for the design in which it's being used.  But the number is small
enough that no matter what kind of car I have, I can feel confident that I
can get the plugs at a local store for a good price.

Contrast this to the current situation with headlights.  Remember when a
headlight burned out, you could go to an auto store, and get a replacement
for $10-15?  Not any more!  The fashionable new "euro aero" headlights now
go for $130-150, available direct from your dealer.  What happened?  Well,
the auto manufacturers found that they could save about 1% on aerodynamic
efficiency by modifying the headlights to fit into the nose smoothly, so
when the government deregulated them, they all went out and developed
incompatible "advanced" headlights.

Am I getting through to you people yet?  Are you looking forward to spending
$300 to replace your car's headlamps for 1% extra aerodynamic efficiency?

My point is this:  I don't want to slow the wheels of progress, but neither
do I want to be run over by them because someone had to make things just a
little bit better.  Not every technological advancement works for the benefit
of humanity as a whole.

>  4. a working certification process for binary compatibility.

I have been informed that SPARC International also has that.  Also, on
the PC, I have my own "working certification process" (for both hardware
and software).  I call the vendor and ask if it works.  (Then maybe I'll
call some other people and ask them, too...)  If I install the product and
it doesn't work, it goes back to the distributor in return for another
alternative.  The market is so big that there are a number of choices, and
a number of distributors that will work on those terms.

As I said before, de facto Open Systems.

> 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).

I hate to think that I could even come up with a list of all the operating
systems available for the PC.  MS-DOS, UNIX (from a *number* of vendors,
including Interactive (the oldest commercial Unix vendor), SCO (not far
behind), ESIX, Dell, UHC), Xenix, BSD UNIX, OS/2, Coherent, PC-MOS, TurboDOS,
Concurrent DOS, etc., etc., etc.  I don't know what you mean by "significant",
but keep in mind that Xenix accounts for a *very* large share of installed
UNIX systems worldwide; it is the plurality if not the majority.

> 2. The market for alternative, totally compatible, operating systems
>     on anyone's box is minimal.

See above.  I'm sure glad SCO isn't the only vendor, and that goes for ISC
as well.  Thank goodness for ESIX, who have added two "enhancements" to
their product that have been in need in the PC UNIX market: free technical
support and low price.  Dell is also getting good marks in comp.unix.sysv386
for it's advanced, bug-free code.

I don't care if the market is "minimal", just so long as it's there! It takes
alternatives such as these to keep SCO and ISC focussed on improvement.

Jay Ts, Director
Metran Technology
uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay