Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bacchus!husc6!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: 1003.2 Command Groups && Are we standardizing Unix or not?
Message-ID: <6975@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Jan-87 11:30:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.6975
Posted: Wed Jan 28 11:30:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Jan-87 06:17:53 EST
References: <6881@ut-sally.UUCP> <6710@ut-sally.UUCP> <6783@ut-sally.UUCP> <6818@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: IEEE P1003 Portable Operating System for Computer Environments Committee
Lines: 55
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu

From: seismo!mcnc.org!ecsvax!bet (Bennett Todd)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 14:26:45 est
Organization: Duke User Services

>From: hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu (John Gilmore)
>
>> From: gwyn@brl.arpa (Douglas A. Gwyn)
>> >From: hoptoad!gnu@lll-crg.arpa (John Gilmore)
>> >...  Is it going to be possible to sell a
>> >POSIX system without UUCP?  Ditto for "mail"...
>> 
>> I don't see why these should be mandated when many sites use
>> superior facilities in their place.  Ditto for the spooler.
>...
>(1)  A Posix system should be able to talk *over the phone* with a Unix
>UUCP site.  Why should a Posix user be reduced to public domain kermits and
>things for communication, when we all know we are standardizing Unix, and
>uucp comes with every Unix ever released by AT&T or Berserkeley?

Because UUCP is distinctive among UNIX applications in having "secrets"
buried inside it. To be a UUCP a utility should, at a minimum, be able
to communicate successfully with at least some large proportion of all
existing implementations; unfortunately, the protocol isn't documented
for potential implementors. The only reasonable way to get the protocol
is to read the source code; this makes your resulting implementation a
derivative work and therefore AT&T proprietary. It is *not* appropriate
to produce a standard mandating something which is strictly AT&T
proprietary.

Actually, I have heard of one (1) instance of a UUCP being written and
not beholden to AT&T. However, with substantially less effort than is
required to work from a line trace up and reverse engineer the protocol,
you can produce a complete replacement that works far better in several
important respects (e.g. built-in quoting to enable transparent
transmission through 7-bit communication channels, support for various
flow control mechanisms including the terrible XON/XOFF, ability to work
efficiently in the face of long round-trip packet delays and/or half
duplex, logon dialog specification far more flexible than "expect-send
strings", and so forth). If you want the ability to intercommunicate
with arbitrary other UNIX systems, write a host end portably.

Let's not go out of our way to put roadblocks in the way of competition;
AT&T already isn't the only source for substantially UNIX-like operating
systems; they aren't the only ones who could make available a POSIX
compatible operating system, if gratuitous obstructions like UUCP (with
its undocumented protocol) are avoided.

-Bennett
-- 
Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695
UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet
BITNET: DBTODD@TUCC.BITNET -or- DBTODD@TUCCVM.BITNET -or- bet@ECSVAX.BITNET
terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.

Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 28