Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Splinter Unix?
Keywords: unix, aix, system v, posix
Message-ID: <7954@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 21 May 88 15:59:14 GMT
References: <556@n8emr.UUCP> <7922@brl-smoke.ARPA> <21387@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> <7932@brl-smoke.ARPA> <4137@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 47

In article <4137@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes:
>...  We live it the real world and I see no reason
>for IBM to sacrifice its market share, ...

A company is not entitled to a "market share"; it needs to earn it.
As a customer I do not see AIX as a separate line of development as
helping me in any way.

>System V no more an open system than AIX (or MSDOS or OS/360 for that matter)
>-- it is totally defined and controlled by AT&T, we may propose changes or
>oppose changes, but the owner, author, and final authority is one company:
>AT&T.

It's their property, after all.  UNIX System V is indeed "open" in
several practical senses; it is available for licensing at reasonable
rates, and it has a fairly complete portable interface specification.
In fact I can obtain that interface for virtually all the computers
around here, and we have a lot of them from a wide variety of vendors.
I cannot say that of "a future implementation of AIX".

>POSIX and perhaps GNU are open systems, and as I understand it IBM
>is committed to implementing POSIX (AT&T is not).

POSIX is not a system at all, but a (not yet complete) series of
system interface specifications.  GNU seems irrelevant to me.

AT&T most certainly HAS said that they will adapt their system to
fully comply with POSIX requirements (at least 1003.1; I was there).

>And again, is "common UNIX" defined?  Is it what Sun and AT&T call it?

Fine with me.  Rather that than what IBM calls it.  As I've said, I
need a common application support environment that is "good enough".
I do not need several somewhat different ones, even if they are
"slightly better".

These hardware vendors remind me of automobile manufacturers, although
instead of negotiating with gasoline producers to meet their needs
(for example, higher detergent content to accommodate fuel injectors)
as is done by actual automotive companies, this batch would prefer to
set up their own refining company.  Those of you who made the mistake
of purchasing a diesel automobile during the "fuel crisis" probably
realize why this is not a good solution from the customer's point of
view.

I have yet to hear any praise for the OSF idea from the customer
population (as opposed to the system vendors).