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.