Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!dirtydog.ima.isc.com!ism.isc.com!b1!ico!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: vendor consortiums (consortia?)
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.232027.15721@ico.isc.com>
Date: 5 Jun 91 23:20:27 GMT
References: <1991Jun5.010723.14579@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 53

rmilner@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner) writes:

> Does anyone else feel as skeptical as I do about all these groups of
> companies getting together to co-operate on things?...

No...I feel much more skeptical than you do.

>...Will it really all work out nicely, 
> or will we just trade in the BSD/SysV dichotomy for SVR4/OSF?...

The dichotomies will continue.  (OK, what's the word? "polychotomy"? or
just "confused mess"?)  New variants of "UNIX" (using the term *very*
loosely) are appearing faster than the unification efforts are moving.
Moreover, each (re)unification adds a great pile of sh^H^Hentropy--we get
lots of new code to make the compatibility happen, but we get no new
capabilities, and performance is no better, probably worse.

The consortia serve a more nefarious purpose, in my opinion.  Suppose one
vendor tells you, "you just gotta have this here-now X window system and
this GUI and window manager and desktop manager...and oh, by the way,
you're going to have to add 8 meg of memory, get another disk, and upgrade
the CPU so that performance will be adequate."  You'd tell that vendor
where to put his gui little window system, and look elsewhere.

Now try the same scenario with a mega-consortium.  They're going to tell
you what's good for you, and leave you as few choices about where else to
turn as possible.  You might get away with questioning the direction of a
DEC, a Compaq, or an HPollo...but anyone who questions a consortium of a
dozen or so respected vendors is clearly a fringe case.  They want to set
up the situation so that they can tell you what you have to buy, and limit
your choices to the things they want to build--things which will sell
hardware, and allow "upgrades" that keep selling more and more hardware,
mostly for trivial cosmetic changes--because substantive changes cost real
money to make.

The great corporate discovery of the late '80's to the unpredictability
and expense of constructing significant software (with bloated, mismanaged
groups of mediocre people) is that you can avoid the unpredictability by
not doing anything significant.  If you can't make software good enough to
be sold on its merits, just make something--anything--and go wild on
marketing to sell it regardless of its merits.  Consortia provide the
means to market this software kitsch, to drown out the voices of reason
crying "who wants this crap?"

(Or maybe these are just the rantings of a paranoid who's heard one too many
conspiracy theories...but it does seem curious that the consortia are top-
heavy with hardware vendors trying to dictate software that requires lots
of expensive new hardware.)

[If you're expecting a disclaimer after that, you don't understand USENET.]
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.