Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
From: lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re:  Unix and the future
Message-ID: <9838@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 19:53:04 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9838
Posted: Tue Apr  9 19:53:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 06:27:12 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 17

Of course.  That's precisely why I'm saying that significant
departures from the commercially successful Unix framework would
best be made by non-commercial (volunteer if you wish) groups,
who AREN'T necessarily interested in the economic aspects of the
existing framework.  Ideally, such groups would be working to
do exactly what the commercial interests don't necessarily want
to do: take a risk on a new sort of operating system and new
tools that are NOT based on the existing Unix framework.

There are very solid reasons why (from a commercial standpoint)
firms are likely to stick with a known commercial winner.  And that's
well and good.  All I'm saying is that the non-commercial people
represent the ideal forum for producing something new that isn't
based on the Unix conceptual models.  If they don't do it, it
is unlikely that anyone else will for some time to come.

--Lauren--