Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ius2.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius2.cs.cmu.edu!ralphw
From: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Re: info on CMU 3M Machine
Message-ID: <208@ius2.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 15:16:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ius2.208
Posted: Thu Oct  3 15:16:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 05:45:41 EDT
References: <3749@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <73@unc.unc.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 30

As far as I can tell, CMU is going to let the marketplace develop
a good 3M machine, and any machine Next, Inc. will probably be a contender.
(Any ideas on whether Jobs will build his 'Next' machines with an open bus
architecture?)  Right now the ITC is using Suns and MicroVaxes, and we're
all waiting to find out whether IBM will require everybody on campus to
sign non-disclosure agreements in order to be allowed to use their advanced 
workstation.

MIT's project Athena is using mostly DEC hardware, (MicroVaxes, 750's with
VS-1000 graphics terminals).  They're supporting the CMU window manager
calls as well as their own.  (This will be a big win, especially if the
compatibility is extended to other components of the systems.  Unfortunately
MIT's idea is to provide remote services through a remote procedure call (rpc)
interface, while CMU is using sockets.  Both systems use Berkeley 4.2 Unix.)

I hope the '3M' idea isn't viewed as the ultimate solution, since everyone
know that an open architecture is a requirement to keep up with the state of
the art.
--
				- Ralph

				Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa)
				Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp
				Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido#385 (Pitt-Bull)
-- 
				- Ralph

				Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa)
				Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp
				Fidonet: Ralph Hyre at Fido#385 (Pitt-Bull)