Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA649 ; Sat, 06 Feb 93 16:01:07 EST
Xref: sserve comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3786 comp.unix.questions:30934 comp.sys.dec:11485 comp.unix.bsd:10825 comp.os.os2:2578
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.dec,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.os2
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ncrgw2!psinntp!utoday!wagner
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: net.views - novell/usl deal - replies
Organization: Open Systems Today
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 93 07:00:55 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Feb04.070055.19400@utoday.com>
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions
Lines: 518
Does the imminent acquisition of USL by
Novell mean the end of Unix as an open
operating system?
From: Chiaki Ishikawa <pmcgw!ds5200.!ishikawa@uunet.UUCP>
This is the question posted to many news groups.
I don't think Novell would make, or rather have the sole power to
make, Unix no longer an open system.
Unix means different things to different people. Today, UNIX from USL
is NOT the only UNIX. Posix efforts by IEEE have produced a set of
specifications that allow people to build a system that is
POSIX-compliant and such system should be, in the long run, as
compatible as UNIX can be. (Early Posix compatible systems not
withstanding: I have looked at OpenVMS and not quite impressed with
its Posix compatibility.)
Also, the independent development such as 4.4BSD, 386BSD, Linux, GNU
HURD (Not yet to be seen), independent works like Coherent would
always provide alternative POSIX-like systems even if Novell decides
to close THE UNIX to the rest of the world in terms of improvement,
etc..
The existence of such alternatives will make sure that POSIX arena is
a level playing field free from big players's monopoly.
But, psychologically speaking, if Novell management loses its
collective sanity and does try to close UNIX in some way or the other,
the end of UNIX as we have known quite some time will be here.
Chiaki Ishikawa, Personal Media Corp., MY Bldg, 1-7-7 Hiratsuka,
Shinagawa, Tokyo 142, JAPAN.
From: "Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top" <geoff@tyger.east.sun.com>
[Administrivia]
Geoff Arnold
Distinguished Engineer
SunSelect, a Sun Microsystems Inc. Business
Chelmsford, Massachusetts, USA
[Response]
Does the imminent acquisition of USL by
Novell mean the end of Unix as an open
operating system?
What does "open operating system" mean? Openness is a function of
interface definitions, not of implementation. For the first years of
Unix, the interfaces were defined by and in the code, and so the
reasonably free availability of source code (from AT&T or BSD) was what
made Unix an "open" system. Since the mid-80s, we've realized that
there are better ways of codifying interfaces than through reliance on
a single source code base. SVID, POSIX, XPG, and the various System V
ABIs are the mechanisms that we've chosen for the programmatic
interfaces; elsewhere RFC protocol specifications, the X windows
project and similar activities have defined the intersystem
interfaces.
An open operating system is therefore one that is characterized by
open, public interface specifications. In an ideal world, such
specifications would be completely free and unencumbered. However in
the interests of the buyers of the products that result from these
specifications, it is reasonable to legally control (and possibly even
charge for) the use of such specifications to the minimum extent
necessary to ensure that claims of conformance can be held accountable
to some standard. Sun's NFS policies (publishing the specification,
licensing the NFS trademark, and encouraging participation in
Connectathon) are a good example of this.
With this definition, will Unix remain an open system? I think that in
a few years the question will be moot. The number of new "standard"
interfaces has grown to the point where the notion of a single
monolithic set of interfaces defining an operating system is breaking
down. Microkernels (or "macrokernels", like NT) will all provide a
variety of traditional (Unix, MS Windows) and new (distributed object)
interfaces. Processor speeds will be sufficient to emulate "foreign"
hardware, especially for traditional PC applications. Not all systems
will offer all of the interfaces: nomadic and hand-held systems,
unconstrained by the installed base, will presumably focus on the newer
architectures.
I expect that there will still be a software product called Unix, and
that it will conform to most of the open interface specifications
extant. I'm not sure that under the surface it will bear much
relationship to today's Unix; nor do I expect its source code to be an
important reference base.
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
#DISCLAIMER# THESE ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT THOSE OF SUNSELECT OR SUN MICROSYSTEMS#
From: Jim Mercer <merce@xenitec.on.ca>
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Unix ceased being an open system when it was over-commercialized by
USL/UI/OSF/etc.
With the current joke of litigation that USL has launched against BSD/BSDI,
it has evidently become even less open.
The Fortune 500 should give up on this concept of an "open system" if they
are going to continue to battle for control of it.
They used to say Unix was not ready for the Fortune 500, perhaps the
Fortune 500 is not ready for Unix.
--
[ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research merce@iguana.reptiles.org ]
[ longer life through colder blood ]
From: Michael Galassi <nerd@percival.rain.com>
The end of UNIX as an open system already came when USL's legal staff
decided they should sue the competition away. Novell has an oportunity
to open things up again by competing on the basis of technical excelence
rather than legal clout. Their actions on this issue will send us all a
clear message on how open we can expect UNIX (and NetWare) to be in the
future.
Gotcha...
Michael Galassi
Software Engineer
Frye Electronics, Inc.
POB 23391
Tigard, OR 97281
-michael
--
On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd say... Oh, somewhere in there.
Michael Galassi -- nerd@percy.rain.com
From: Michael Galassi <nerd@percival.rain.com>
Sorry, I was unclear, you are right though, I did mainly mean BSDI
though they are involving UCB's CSRG in this too thus we can expect
Bill Jolitz's effort to come under fire at some time.
Unrelated note, congratulations on the outstanding ongoing effort you
and your crew put in with Unix Today, the information I've gotten from
your publication has been very usefull to me several times. Keep up
the good work.
-michael
>From crynwr!uu3.psi.com!crynwr.com!nelson Fri Jan 22 23:52:15 1993
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Organization: Crynwr Software
Why, I'm the President, of course (I'm also the Janitor). The Welsh
pronounce it something like "Crehnuur", rolling the r's. I pronounce
it Crinwhirr.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676 | the harm software patents do.
>From crynwr!uu3.psi.com!crynwr.com!nelson Fri Jan 22 14:58:31 1993
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Organization: Crynwr Software
Unix is the success it has been because it is an open system. Were
Novell to close SysV, you'd find people ceasing to support SysV. I
don't expect Novell to shoot themselves in the foot. They didn't
become the size company they are today by making a practice of lusing.
Fortunately, Novell is only buying the name Unix, and a particular
kernel, so if they do indeed do something stupid, we'll have alternatives.
--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676 | the harm software patents do.
From: Russell Trotter <trotter@panther.mot.com>
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Hello,
I really don't think the acquisition of USL by Novell mean
the end of UNIX as an open system. It's status won't change
just because of a buyout from another company. It's also
doubtful that Novell will drastically change the "look and feel"
of UNIX either. In fact, I'll bet you'll see hardly a change
in the product at all. I look at all the other buyouts
(borland,ashton-tate) (microsoft,foxpro) etc,etc...Those
products didn't change with the exception of the packaging.
I see a similar path for UNIX under Novell.
Russell Trotter
Info Enterprises (a Motorola Company)
Chandler, Arizona
Junior, Arizona State University, Tempe Arizona
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Hardly. UNIX-from-USL may be closed up, but there is still UNIX from
SCO, Sun, HP, IBM, NeXT, and, of course, BSDI, "the 386BSD community,"
and the Linux folks.
It is Novell's best interest to see Windows/NT fail, more than for
UNIX to succeed. I'm reasonably confident Novell knows this; if not, it
will be pointed out to them more times than they'll care to hear before
all is over and done with.
Sean Eric Fagan
Member, Technical Staff
Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
From: Brian Holmes <bri@jake.cc.wayne.edu>
No, the acquisition of USL by Novell doesn't mean the end of UNIX as an open
operating system. Check out "Linux" which is a Sys VR3 compatible UNIX
for which source is freely available and developement continues. FYI
From: weyrich!orville@uunet.UUCP
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
I fear that Unix will become more closed and more expensive, and that TCP/IP
will be phased out or else become horribly expensive. I fear "Certified Unix
Engineer" will become the norm, with hard-to-get documentation on what to
learn in order to become one and do the job of one, and horribly expensive
training courses being officially sanctioned.
Note that I am a "Certified Data Processor" --
but the certification process is very open, with material being drawn from
readily available "classic books", and comprehensive study guides being
readily available at reasonable cost. My limited exposure to Novell is very
different.
While I continue to operate Unix and to do Unix consulting, I am diversifying
to OS/2 because I see the "New" IBM as being far more open than Novell.
IBM supports TCP/IP and NFS connectivity with Unix at reasonable cost;
Novell does not. I do not trust Microsoft and am not currently considering
NT as an alternative, even given it's partial POSIX compatibility.
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.
Owner
Weyrich Computer Consulting
Scottsdale, AZ
orville
-------------------------------------- ******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional
Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
-------------------------------------- ******************************
From: stidolph@leland.stanford.edu
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Nope. POSIX and all the variants running around will keep "Unix" viable
(I hate to admit it) as an "open" system. The continuing BSD/academic
tradition is key in this.
Wayne E. Stidolph
work (but don't speak) for GTE Government System in Mtv View, CA
Sr. Member Tech Staff
--
Wayne stidolph@gtewd.mtv.gsc.gte.com or stidolph@leland.stanford.edu
What I say is from me only. I try to be accurate, but I make mistakes: sorry.
From: Jim Mercer <jim@cai.lsuc.on.ca>
Sometimes I am:
jim@lsuc.on.ca
Jim Mercer, Systems and Communications Analyst
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Other times I am:
merce@iguana.reptiles.org
Reptilian Research
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
--
[ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!uunet.ca!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Systems and Communications Analyst - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
From: Jim Mercer <jim@cai.lsuc.on.ca>
oh, BTW: what can i do to get OST again? i moved offices and i think that my
subscription has lapsed.
is it still free?
--
[ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!uunet.ca!lsuc!jim ]
[ Systems and Communications Analyst - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
From: Jim Mercer <jim@cai.lsuc.on.ca>
Jim Mercer
The Law Society of Upper Canada
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
CANADA M5H 2N6
thanx
--
[ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!uunet.ca!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Systems and Communications Analyst - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
From: Marc Mengel <mengel@dcdmwm.fnal.gov>
Well, yes and no. If you mean "Unix", above, as UNIX(tm), the
trademark, quite possibly. There are getting to be more and
more POSIX compliant, or soon to be POSIX compliant systems
out there, such as OSF/1, AIX, BSDI, 386BSD, LINUX, VMS/POSIX,
etc. which are making the marketplace of the future much more
varied; USL has been historically not terribly responsive to
the needs of their customers; and in recent history has outsourced
much of its major development to Sun, Interactive, and others.
As these new POSIX compliant operating systems become mature and
supported platforms, I think we will see some real competition
against USL, and more and more market share going to other POSIX
compliant platforms.
So I expect UNIX(tm) to go the way of the dodo, but POSIX compliant
systems to proliferate and prosper.
OSF/1, AIX, BSDI, 386BSD, LINUX and VMS are (I think) trademarks of the Open
Systems Foundation, IBM Corp, BSDI Corp, the Jolitz's, ???, and DEC,
respectively. UNIX is a trademark of USL, a subsidiary of AT&T, Novell, or
whoever it is this week.
-------
Marc Mengel
mengel@fnal.fnal.gov
From: "Marc W. Mengel" <mengel@dcdmwm.fnal.gov>
Organization: Fermilab Unix System Support Group
OK. I actually hadn't noticed that xrn wasn't including my ORGANIZATION info...
I'll have to fix that...
Name: Marc Mengel
Empl: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Universities Reasearch Assoc.)
Job: Systems Administration Consultant, Unix Systems Support Group
Loc: Fermilab Mail Stop 369, P.O. Box 500, Batavia IL 60510
Phone:(708) 840 8256
>From sandelman.ocunix.on.ca!uunet.uucp!micor!mcr Wed Jan 27 20:49:29 1993
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2); Wed, 27 Jan 93 15:50:25 -0500
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@latour.sandelman.ocunix.on.ca>
Organization: Sandelman Software Works, Debugging Department, Ottawa, ON
You have not adequately defined the `Unix'
If you mean: SVR3 and SVR4 it is almost a moot point, IMHO.
USL has already gone the way of Novell and Microsoft and nickel and
dimming one to death. Want a copiler? $$ Want a network? $$ Want DWB? $$
SVR4 was more complete, but still felt like being nickel and dimmed.
(Dell is a notable exception)
The USL + Novell mariage appears from my point of view to be a match
made in heaven. Both have large market shares of the `suits' and real
programmers won't touch either. The community can simple continue to
ignore them again. (save for the occasional lawsuit)
The future of ``Open Systems'' is with POSIX compliant systems such
as OSF, Hurd, QNX, etc... I believe that NT will be POSIX and there
are plenty of people lining up to lick Mr. Gates' boots. I have also
heard a rumour that NT is Mach based (I do not trust that source and
haven't bothered to confirm or deny it). Perhaps the question should
be: has Mach replaced Unix?
btw: don't forget Linux, 386BSD and Sprite. I also don't see HP-UX
or AIX (IBM) flinching much from this deal. Neither has gone back to
AT&T sources since before USL.
--
:!mcr!: | The postmaster never | So much mail,
Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | so little time.
HOME: mcr@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca
SCHOOL: 192228@physics.carleton.ca
From: Tom Teixeira <tjt@okimicro.oki.com>
Who I am:
Thomas Teixeira
Director, R&D Programs
Oki America, Inc.
Oki Advanced Products Division
100 Nickerson Road
Marlboro, MA 01752
If by "open operating system" you mean an operating system that lots of companies or
universities can contribute to, enhance, customize and so forth in a way that can be
used on multiple hardware platforms, UNIX ceased to be an open system back in 1982
when Sun Microsystems was formed. Prior to that, the University of California at
Berkeley served as the semi-official clearing house for improvements to UNIX. AT&T was
never able to fill that role since they were always leary about taking any code back
without entering into complex licensing arrangements and so forth.
To be fair, the UNIX Systems Group at Berkeley did continue after Sun was founded and
released 4.3BSD, the "Tahoe" release, and others, but these had successively less
impact on users of UNIX systems. This is not because Bill Joy was no longer around to
stamp changes with a magic seal of approval, but because UNIX actually became a
commercial success, and system vendors who were struggling to make their software more
robust, faster, easier to use, or whatever didn't have the time or resources to track
all the changes that were made available to UCB, as well trying to come up with the
right sort of proprietary enhancements to give them an advantage over their
competitors (the oxymoron for proprietary open systems is intentional).
Sun surprised the industry and re-invented the concept of "open systems" by licensing
NFS to anyone who could come up with the licensing fees and lead the way to "open
systems" meaning "mostly compatible and interoperable over Ethernet". The biggest
barriers to increasing the compatibility remains the expense of changing the installed
customer base which is the responsibility of users as much as system vendors who may
want more compatibility, but "not in my back yard" -- let the other vendors (and
users) change their systems to be compatible with mine. This is nowhere more evident
than among the OSF sponsors who still support their "proprietary" UNIX implementations
in preference to OSF versions. It doesn't matter who is setting the open standards
since Sun isn't shipping vanilla System V Release 4 either, and SCO (still leading the
count of UNIX licensees by unit count) ships System V Release 3.
Of course, neither OSF/1 nor System V Release 4 were really intended to be
ready-to-use products, but instead, were pieces of software technology that a system
vendor would license to get a head start in producing their products. Any deficiencies
in this technology had to be corrected by the system vendor: OSF and USL would not and
could not make these changes because they were busy being "vendor neutral", and more
importantly, there was no way for them to make money by fixing things many of their
customers had already fixed, thereby forcing all their customers to fix problems on
their own.
Novell, on the other hand, does seem to know how to make money by selling products. If
Novell concentrates on producing customer ready, shrink-wrapped system software and
delivering it to the masses, they can do more for real interoperability than by
licensing half-baked technology to companies that take three years to ship the
technology in their product. Unfortunately for current workstation and minicomputer
users, Novell will have to start with Intel platforms since that's where the money is
(just ask Bill Gates). If Novell succeeds, they can move to other platforms like maybe
Sparc, Alpha, Power PC, ...
--
Thomas J. Teixeira Oki Advanced Products Division
100 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
tjt@oki.com "Insert your quote here." B. Stroustroup
From: jlnance@eos.ncsu.edu
James Lewis Nance
Grad student - North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Unix is not an open operating system now. There are however, so many different
people who produce operating systems which look like Unix, that it migth as
well be an open operating system.
I beleive that Novel is a member of OSF,
which USL was not. Thus the aquisition of USL by Novel has the potential to
make Unix a much more open (standardized) OS.
Jim Nance