Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lzmi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!ahuta!pegasus!lzmi!psc From: psc@lzmi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: IBM to support UNIX on 4300 (why not AT&T's port) Message-ID: <331@lzmi.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 21:08:30 EST Article-I.D.: lzmi.331 Posted: Mon Mar 4 21:08:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 04:33:15 EST References: <132@v1.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-IS Enhanced Network Services Lines: 25 >> It would be interesting to see if that standalone >> UNIX could be forced out of the bowels of IBM. > >Why not try to force the 370 Unix described in the BLTJ October 1984 issue >"out of the bowels of" AT&T? It claims to be "standalone", and (from the >available public descriptions of both systems) appears to be very similar >to what IX/370 would be "on the bare metal". > >One word of caution. Those who try to force things "out of the bowels of" >other entities should watch where they stand (:-). [from an IBMer] You're telling me. As I heard it, IBM and AT&T signed a joint agreement; IBM would make a change to some part of their system, and AT&T would port Unix to run on the result. They did so, and got it up and running at several sites. AT&T then wanted to market the result; IBM pointed to some fine print in the agreement and disallowed them. I welcome rebuttles to this rumor. Note that Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories, one of several companies whose official positions on this subject may greatly differ from the story above. -- -Paul S. R. Chisholm ...!{pegasus,cbosgd}!lzmi!psc The above opinions are my own, ...!{hocsj,ihnp4}!lznv!psc not necessarily anyone else's.