Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!ptsfa!well!wolf From: wolf@well.UUCP (Dwight Leu) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Microsoft dropping Xenix Message-ID: <4610@well.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Dec-87 17:29:22 EST Article-I.D.: well.4610 Posted: Wed Dec 2 17:29:22 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 06:05:46 EST Lines: 139 Keywords: Microport Real Unix In article <384\@sco>, amys\@sco.COM (Amy Snader) writes: > There's just so much BS out of Microport I can stand, even > though I make no claim to having an impartial opinion... I'm sorry to say that this is hardly a professional statement; and ms snader's subsequent comments are obviously not informed ones. I won't waste net bandwidth responding to the diatribe against Microport; especially since none of my statements were contradicted. But I'd be happy to clarify her nonsense if it's of use to the net. What does need to be clarified are the comments about my ending signature: > >"Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and > > switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it." > Such invective! > Dwight should know better. First "misunderstanding": that Microsoft > is "dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX". Microsoft isn't dropping > anything: they are merging the two products. What the merged > product is called is irrelevant: it was as much born out of XENIX > as anything. As evidence of this, note that AT&T is > paying royalties to Microsoft for the use of the XENIX technology > in the merged product. On the contrary, Microsoft *is* dropping XENIX and switching to UNIX. They are switching from their past porting base and finally, at long last (and after much resistance), starting out with real certified UNIX. There's a big difference between UNIX and XENIX. UNIX V.3 has much more support for advanced technology than V.2; and XENIX doesn't even come from the certified V.2 port. Besides, if there wasn't such a big difference it wouldn't be taking Microsoft so long, and so much effort. The merged product will only contain parts of XENIX; notably support for XENIX binary compatibility. The argument about the merged product being born out of XENIX is quite wrong; it will be born solely out of the certified release, and contain only selected parts of XENIX technology. Microsoft is certainly merging technologies. But they are dropping a lot of what they currently have. > Second "misunderstanding": the implication > that XENIX applications won't run after the merge. > I haven't seen a formal statement out of MS, which > is what you probably mean by "guarantee." > I haven't seen any statement out of MS claiming > compatibility with any other sort of current binary. > This is meaningless invective. > > What is true is that being able to run older applications has > always been a key attribute of XENIX. XENIX 386 can not only > run XENIX 286 and XENIX 86 binaries, it can generate them. > The philosophy of not breaking applications has been pervasive > in XENIX from the very beginning, when we were careful not > to break Altos applications. Obviously, a product that > is the next generation of XENIX will put a high value on preserving > the compatibility that has always been XENIX. > > Since Microsoft is doing the merge, I'd expect that if they > were forced to break either XENIX binaries or Coff binaries, they'd > do the latter, both because there's more XENIX binaries out > there and as a matter of remaining true to your own. > > I speak solely for myself, not for SCO. > Followups should probably go either to comp.unix.xenix or the Microport > group, if it ever gets established. > > --amy > {ihnp4,microsof,amdcad}!sco!abs Sorry amy. You just aren't familiar with real UNIX technology, or the effort at commercializing UNIX, which ATT is dumping millions of dollars into. If you were you'd know about ATT's certification program. It's a rigorous testing procedure, exercising the UNIX port inside and out. And it's designed to insure that a port meets the demanding standards which ATT has been working on since 1983. The merged UNIX port will either conform or it won't be accepted. If Microsoft breaks UNIX, they will have to go back and fix it. There are no if's, and's or but's. Unfortunately Microsoft is woefully lacking in a similar assurance program; instead, all one has are promises from marketing. If Microsoft had been serious about maintaining upward compatibility, they would've set up a similiar certification program for XENIX. But they haven't; and there's no formal way of testing out whether 100% of XENIX binary compatibility has been achieved. The only way a XENIX customer will know if his application will run is by trying out the merged product. If it doesn't, he's out of luck. He'll have to buy a whole new package or be stuck forever with an operating system that is no longer supported. What a wasted investment! UNIX customers however can rest assured that any application which uses the certified UNIX technology will run under the merged product, without changes. This is the whole point behind the certification program. And it's part of the reason why ATT has put millions of dollars into porting application software over to UNIX. According to Intel, there are more application programs being ported to UNIX on the 386 than any other 386 operating system. ATT is not about to lose its investment here. I would like to thank you though for bringing this issue up. Microport is a small company, and can't go around holding big press conferences that ATT has to correct later on, like its bigger competitors. And please don't misunderstand me on the merged program. I really think it's wonderful that Microsoft is paying ISC to give Microport XENIX binary compatibilty. Especially after they threatened to sue us if we ever did it, forcing us to drop this program after half a year's effort. But since you've raised the subject, I would like to use this opportunity and ask Microsoft to formally guarantee its customers that their investment is a sound one. And I don't mean its usual marketing hype; their marketing department's ability to deliver on their promises speaks for itself. In my opinion, without a certification program for XENIX they have a burden, a responsibility, to offer some sort of real assurance that their customers aren't going to be stuck with obsolete technology next year. The only real assurance that I can see would be a money back guarantee if they fail. Considering that their customers are gambling on Microsoft's ability to deliver what they promise, I don't see why Microsoft would hesitate to do this. Unless of course they don't think they can deliver on XENIX binary compatibility. But I expect the silence to be quite deafening, and very telling. And I suspect that their customers, having made a substantial (if not overpriced) investment, will have to rise up and insist upon it before it happens. So I would strongly encourage any and all XENIX customers to demand a real guarantee from Microsoft and SCO. Without it, they may very well be stuck in a very expensive trap. -dwight- Dwight H. Leu ihnp4!amdcad!uport!dwight V.P. Engineering well!wolf Microport microsoft!sco!ucscc!uport!dwight 408-438-8649 These statements expressed are of course my own viewpoint. "Will your XENIX application run next year when Microsoft drops XENIX and switches to UNIX? Not even Microsoft guarantees it. Will they 88 8