Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re:OSF, AT&T, and The Big Breakout
Summary: more unsolicited
	 and unsubstantiated...
Message-ID: <569@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 23 May 88 08:18:40 GMT
References: <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3166@pdn.UUCP> <4629@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 49
Posted: Mon May 23 04:18:40 1988


  As most of us, deep in our hearts, know, this situation is more complex
  than the black and white scenarios that have been painted.

  My own three cents:

  1. I can't accept the simplistic and blanket motives that have been ascribed
     to the OSF contingent.  The major European companies have been working to-
     gether towards a Unix standard for several years; there have been several
     reasons advanced for this but regardless, the depth of this effort does
     not point to an attempt to subvert Unix.   Of the U.S. companies that are
     part of OSF, it appears to me that HP and NCR have more to lose than
     gain by confusing the issue.  Both companies have had clearly defined 
     markets for their Unix products, which they probably would have great
     difficulty competing in with proprietary operating systems.  

     This leaves Apollo, DEC, and IBM.  Each has a history that would tend to
     support theories of nefarious intentions.  But my own sense is that 
     Apollo, at least, was in an untenable situation: dependent on its chief
     competitor to be even-handed.  

  2. There is a small chance that this development may result in the creation
     of a new element that I believe is long overdue: a "heavyweight" user
     group that has sufficient economic force to counter some of the nonsense
     and capriciousness that virtually all of the major Unix vendors have 
     exhibited.  I do not believe in altruistic computer vendors.

     TOPS, of course, is my "model" here, even tho I realize that that
     situation is substantially different.  This is not to say that GM, ele-
     ments of the federal government, and others will necessarily "represent"
     the broad interests of the Unix user community all that well.  But they
     may help to truly advance the notion of an "open system".

  3. It is very difficult for me to believe that Unix can grow into a
     major challenge to vendor-specific mini/mainframe operating systems and
     still remain under the unchallenged control of AT&T (and now Sun).   
     While OSF may be a threat to the continuing growth of Unix, it is also a
     sign that Unix is making its presence felt in a very substantial way.
     I believe that the latter is the fundamental "motive" for the creation
     of OSF, rather than the specific details of what pushed DEC, IBM, and 
     others to act.  Those come in to play in the organizational structure
     and the future actions of OSF itself.  Is it really believable that 
     these companies would entrust much of their future revenues and perhaps
     even existence to the good graces of several competitors ?  Next to this,
     issues such as licensing fees are inconsequential.


   greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
     Next to this, issues such as licensing costs are inconsequential.