Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: O'pain Software Foundation: (3) relationship to GNU & openness Message-ID: <7856@ncoast.UUCP> Date: 2 Jun 88 21:37:01 GMT References: <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3166@pdn.UUCP> <3c2a41f6.13422@apollo.uucp> <4630@hoptoad.uucp> <3c3fdf1b.4bee@apollo.uucp> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 145 As quoted from <3c3fdf1b.4bee@apollo.uucp> by gallen@apollo.uucp (Gary Allen): +--------------- | First of all, its unlikely that 7 (ok, 6 1/2) of the worlds giant corporations | are sufficiently freaked out by GNU that they are out to steal FSF's thunder. | C'mon, how about a reality break? +--------------- One reality break, coming up. It is, of course, good technique to obscure any competitors... and the name "Open Software Foundation" does so by (1) implying that AT&T/Sun isn't, and (2) by obscuring the existence of the FSF, which is potentially their BIGGEST problem. (Let us hope that the creation of the OSF causes many companies to fund the FSF! I wouldn't trust IBM as far as I could throw it.) +--------------- | If reality is not your bag (it isn't always mine either), feel free to strike | fear into the heart of 60 billion/year IBM, 12 billion/year DEC, ...... | Lawsuits? You're talking about the people who invented the word. +--------------- Awww, poor wittwe IBM! Maybe it's time IBM got a rude awakening. I rather suspect that RMS would be quite willing to do the honors... and the fact that IBM can afford lawyers doesn't necessarily mean the FSF would lose. +--------------- | are you unaware that VMS outsells UNIX on VAXen 15 or so to 1? Are you +--------------- I am given to understand that that is no longer true. +--------------- | unaware that MS-DOS (PC-DOS if you prefer) is proprietary, the most common OS | on earth, the most portable, and probably also the worst? While I like FSF +--------------- "Most portable"?! And you think *John* needs a reality check?! The only reason that MS-DOS runs on so many different kinds of PCs is that they're all *hardware* clones of each other. You don't believe me? Try booting generic MS-DOS on an old Sanyo MBC-550. Or on a Tandy 2000. Or a PCjr. Or an Altos 586. Get the idea? (You can get modified MS-DOS for three of them... because the hardware is *sufficiently* close to a PC. The Altos box, on the other hand, is too smart for MS-DOS because of its memory management unit and other features. MS-DOS in particular requires that certain things be done in ROM... if they aren't, fat chance!) +--------------- | The whole market? REALITY dude, REALITY. These 7 companies ARE the vast majority | of the market. Obsolete IBM, DEC, HP, etc. On second thought, DRUGS dude DRUGS! +--------------- Oh, I see. Now let us all kneel and worship the Gods of the Computer. To put it mildly: up theirs! Of *course* they're the vast majority of the market! And they d*mned well want to make sure that they have all their customers locked up -- but Unix has begun to make that impossible. Of *course* DEC and IBM in particular will want to derail Unix as soon as possible! "Why pick on DEC and IBM?" Because they're the ones with the track records for shafting their customers -- *especially* IBM, who (not incidentally) is providing the development base for OSF's FUDnix. (my name, not theirs) If IBM has an overwhelming history of locking its customers into a death grip, is it not reasonable to assume that they are doing so yet again? And DEC is the company which tried to ignore the existence of Unix for as long as possible, then finally was forced to produce Ultrix -- which is known to be broken. And it seems (see other messages in this group, and if there are any archives of this group you might find them instructive as well) that DEC has been known to either (1) misrepresent Ultrix in order to force customers into VMS or (2) simply ignore a customer order for Ultrix and ship them VMS instead. Why pick on DEC and IBM? Because we have only their past actions to go on -- and based on those past actions, the OSF spells major trouble for Unix. +--------------- | they wanted, just like DEC, IBM, Apollo, etc. Open? When was the last time you | had anything to say about what UNIX is/isn't? +--------------- 4.2BSD, actually. You will note that BSD features have been popping up in System V right and left -- vi here, "reliable signals" there, NFS in the future. +--------------- | UNIX will not favor particular machine architectures such as SPARC and 3Bx, then | I'd like to talk to you about some bridges that I have for sale. The idea that +--------------- And, of course, the fact that UCB won't sell me a copy of 4.3BSD for a 65C816 CPU makes UCB an evil corporate giant, perhaps? Let's leave out the arguments which have no relation to the point at hand, please. +--------------- | Each of the companies involved in OSF have particular needs/focus that must be | addressed by any PORTABLE OS, which is really what you're after isn't it? For | instance, whose notion of ISAM files will be used in UNIX? I don't know, do you? | Perhaps AT&T will get around to it as THEY need it. Otherwise, we have to provide | interim solutions that our customers will use until there is some sort of | "standard". Then, our customers will have to rewrite their applications to match. | Hardly portable. +--------------- Gee, I could have sworn that AT&T had announced they would support POSIX... guess the OSF knows better, right? C'mon, AT&T isn't *stupid*. 4.xBSD vs. System V proved the need for a standard, that's why there is POSIX. SVID is an evident failure, else AT&T wouldn't be working with Sun Microsystems from the other side of the fence. Let's give the people at AT&T credit for some intelligence. They would NOT be integrating with BSD Unix if they wanted to shaft everyone else: they could do *that* much more easily the same way they countered termcap with terminfo. +--------------- | A) Sit in the back of the bus | B) Get off the UNIX bus | C) Start a new bus company. +--------------- And, to use one of your earlier examples, which of these has been done with MS-DOS? Think about it. (Oh, but of course: IBM is (was) involved with MS-DOS, so it must be perfectly all right! Since they're *not* involved with Unix, *that* must be horribly evil!) <-- Can you say "double standard"? How about "hypocrisy"? And show me the difference between AT&T-Sun collusion with DEC, IBM, etc. on the sidelines and Microsoft-IBM collusion with Compaq, Tandy, etc. on the sidelines. Think about it. And then tell me the salient difference between them. (Hint: IBM) +--------------- | Put yourself in our place, what would you have done? And by the way, FSF was never | considered, thought about, infringed upon, or even mentioned. +--------------- Which is the most conclusive proof I've seen yet that the "Open" Software Foundation is a sham. If the reasons for the OSF were *truly* as stated, then all those companies would have supported the FSF. That they didn't says quite a bit about th eintentions of the member companies.... -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!marque,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY MCI Mail: BALLBERY