Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!nsc!glennw From: glennw@nsc.nsc.com (Glenn Weinberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T? Keywords: OSF, AT&T, standards, competition Message-ID: <5085@nsc.nsc.com> Date: 25 May 88 17:59:16 GMT References: <24369@pyramid.pyramid.com> <10978@steinmetz.ge.com> <14181@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Reply-To: glennw@nsc.UUCP (Glenn Weinberg) Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale Lines: 118 I never, ever, thought I'd see the day when the great majority of people on Usenet would come to the opinion that AT&T had their best interests at heart! I continue to be amazed at how so many people are just gobbling up the AT&T corporate line on the effects of OSF on the Unix* market. I realize that I will get severely flamed for these opinions, but for what it's worth here are my ideas on several of the points that have been discussed by a variety of people: 1) Timing of releases Contrary to what some people have claimed, the circumstances surrounding the timing of releases HAVE changed recently. Prior to the OFFICIAL announcement of the AT&T/Sun merger, SVR4 and ABI's, (which was quite recent, not a couple of years old as at least one person has implied) AT&T did get a head start on the rest of the industry, but basically no other vendors were favored. As of SVR4, Sun in particular, and other vendors with ABI's to a lesser degree, would be favored. 2) ABI's Now, you say, "well, why doesn't everyone just sign up for an ABI, then?" The answer is simple: because AT&T wouldn't let them. AT&T alone decided which vendors it would sign ABI agreements with. I can't provide much more detail than that, but I think you can guess what the criteria were if you look at the list of founding members of OSF. (And by the way, AT&T isn't just giving away ABI agreements for free, either.) Also, keep in mind why the Hamilton group got together in the first place. Initially, THERE WAS TO BE ONLY ONE ABI--THE SPARC ABI. AT&T had to retreat from that position when they saw the reaction, and opened up the ABI idea to other vendors. Of course, in the process they eliminated ABI's greatest attraction, that of being able to provide shrink-wrapped software for Unix. (Now, AT&T and probably Sun will deny that a SPARC-only ABI was ever their intention, but if you believe that, I too have a bridge to sell you.) 3) Vendor neutrality Many people have commented on the fact that OSF will be dominated by IBM and DEC. This shows a clear lack of understanding of how OSF will be structured. OSF is an independent foundation, with its own board, president and technical director. In many ways, it's set up like MCC, for those of you who are familiar with that organization. IBM and DEC will be board members just like everyone else. They will still have only one vote each. Furthermore, the actual technical decisions will be made by the president and/or technical director, not by the board or by a committee. If the board decides the president and/or technical director show a bias, they can fire them. 4) Porting base Yes, it has been stated that AIX will be the base software for the OSF version of Unix. But all of the members of the OSF will be contributing software to the foundation, and all will have the resulting whole ported to their systems. So there will be an advantage to being a member of the OSF, but anyone can join the OSF, unlike the ABI club, where AT&T has exclusive control over the membership. 5) Licensing Anyone who has seen the changes in the licensing agreements for System V from SVR1 through SVR3 must understand one of the greatest motiviations for creating the OSF. AT&T has arbitrarily changed the definition of Unix, how it can be distributed, to whom it can be distributed, what it costs, etc., etc. Major portions of the system have been unbundled or dropped altogether (e.g., DWB, man pages--did you know that the SVR3 license does not allow you to ship man pages?) What will they change next? Of course it's possible that the OSF will play the same games, but I don't think they will, and besides, the MEMBERSHIP has control over the OSF's licensing terms. Only AT&T has control over AT&T's licensing terms. 6) Standardization Sorry, the AT&T/Sun effort doesn't result in standardization either. First, even if you grant portability over all the ABI's (which I don't), as discussed above, not all vendors will be allowed to have an ABI. Second, there is already the question of POSIX. Third, since AT&T has shown no propensity to accept input regarding the contents of future releases, each vendor has been forced to extend Unix in its own way. This is standardization? At least with OSF I see the POSSIBILITY of setting up working groups to define and implement standard versions of market-specific extensions to Unix. I wanted to present my opinions to the net, especially since I do not (nor have I ever) worked for any of the OSF members and therefore consider myself to be at least somewhat neutral. It has pained me to see all the negative publicity surrounding OSF, and maybe even more, the positive light in which AT&T has been portrayed recently. It is my humble opinion that AT&T has, in fact, precipitated the new "divisiveness" in the Unix community with its ABI creation, and that OSF is a positive reaction to this problem. Obviously, there are many others who disagree with me, but hey, life wouldn't be any fun otherwise! So, I've said my piece, and I'm ready. Fire away! Glenn Weinberg Manager, Operating Systems Development, Series 32000 National Semiconductor Corporation STRONG DISCLAIMER: I speak strictly for myself. I do not mean to imply in any way a commitment by National Semiconductor to OSF or, in fact, to any of the opinions expressed above. (Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T.) -- Glenn Weinberg Email: glennw@nsc.nsc.com National Semiconductor Corporation Phone: (408) 721-8102 (My opinions are strictly my own, but you can borrow them if you want.)