Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!mit-eddie!zrm From: zrm@mit-eddie.UUCP (Zigurd R. Mednieks) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.followup,net.micro Subject: Re: AT&T vs. the toolkit approach Message-ID: <2175@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 10:09:36 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2175 Posted: Mon Jun 18 10:09:36 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Jun-84 00:31:22 EDT References: <283@stcvax.UUCP> <861@tekchips.UUCP> <511@islenet.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 23 AT&T if, in fact, botching their entry into the market with the unbundled approach to software. 3rd party software vendors won't want to deal with umpteen software configuartions that may or may not be orthogonal to the hardware configuarations. If my precompiler relies on sed being there, I don't want to have to hassle my customer about a program he may not have heard of or be interested in finding out about. Also, being closed mouthed about the hardware is a serious mistake of even larger proportions. AT&T, it seems, is cruising for a bigger bruising than the HP9000, another fantasic piece of hardware that has been kept under wraps by corporate Vogons. Compare the secretive approach of AT&T to DEC's approach with the PDP11 and IBM's with the PC. Both those machines are extremely well documented and have become classics in their domain. Serious software people WANT to know what's on the inside and will place machines with secret insides at the bottom of their priorities no matter how many two page spreads they see in Bussiness Week. If AT&T falls on its face, I wonder if IBM will realize that the follow on to the PC had better be as well documented as the original PC. Probably not. -Zig