home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Power Tools 1993 November - Disc 2
/
Power Tools Plus (Disc 2 of 2)(November 1993)(HP).iso
/
hotlines
/
gsyhl
/
stdwp
/
stdswp2.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-09-01
|
29KB
|
656 lines
HP-UX and the Standards Movement
C. Sheldon 5/92
Table of Contents
The Nature of Standards...............................2
The Birth of a Standard...............................3
Standards to Watch....................................4
OSF and UI: Technology Suppliers......................7
HP-UX: HP's Implementation of "Unix".................10
HP-UX and System V Release 4.........................11
HP-UX and OSF........................................13
Summary..............................................14
Glossary.............................................15
NOTE: The discussion of HP-UX in this document refers to
HP-UX running on the Series 800 systems unless otherwise
stated.
.PA
The Nature of Standards
In this discussion of standards, it is important to remember
that "standards" means lots of different things to lots of
different people. The "standards" we are addressing here are
standards for the computing or application environment. They
are not a meter stick. They are not a kilogram. There is no
museum somewhere that displays THE STANDARD.
Standards for the application environment are continuously
evolving. As a standard is determined for each portion or
element of the computing environment, it makes room for the
next elemental standard, and so on. We can expect to see
standards in the future that address computing technologies
that we haven't even conceived of yet.
The development of a standard takes time. Inevitably, user
needs or market needs race ahead of standards creating a gap
between the standards that exist and what the market needs.
Vendors must fill that gap with "extensions" or
"enhancements" or "added value" which then in turn become the
seeds for the next area of standards development (or
adoption). (see graph 1.1)
..picturea:\icnos29.gal,65535,49151,4,73,21,
Graph 1.1
Application environment standards do not dictate that all
computers must be the same. That may sound like a
contradiction. Remember that "the same" means every part of
something is identical to every part of something else.
Rather, an application environment standard describes the
etiquette that different parts of the computer (software
primarily, but some hardware, too) use to interact with each
other. And the application environment standards are not
concerned about the bricks or wood or plaster that computer
parts are made out of, only the etiquette the parts use among
each other. (Footnote; there are many other standards like
this today...the electrical outlet doesn't care if the plug
is made of metal type A or metal type B, or if it's covered
with pink plastic or brown rubber; the cassette player
doesn't care if tape is made of chromium dioxide or metal, or
if the case is clear or opaque plastic.)
The Birth of a Standard
Standards are born in one of two ways. Either by being
adopted by a recognized standards organization or by being
adopted by a large portion of the market (sometimes called a
"defacto" standard).
Why is the nature of application environment standards
important to understand? Because some people expect that
application environment standards are going to be like a
meter...that is, set in stone, all parameters specified, no
room for interpretation or variation, constant. Those people
will be waiting a long time.
Look at what is happening to DOS for the PC. DOS does not
incorporate modularity to be flexible and grow. It is not an
application environment standard in the sense spoken of here;
it is "the same" on each platform, NOT an evolving, growing
standard. Technology around it (both software and hardware -
80286, 80386, 80486) expanded past the point at which DOS
could fully use the system. User needs also expanded past
the point at which DOS was useful. Hence the development of
OS/2. There are definite benefits to having "the same" on
each platform (e.g., having the "same" allows an Application
Binary Interface which makes "shrink wrapped" software
possible). There are also limitations to having the "same"
on each platform (e.g., multitasking is not possible in DOS
and utilization of new technologies, like multiprocessing, as
they emerge is not possible).
The nature of application environment standards is that they
are continually evolving and expanding. They also follow a
philosophy that they will need to grow and expand in the
future. That's why standards incorporate concepts of
modularity. When a better feature X becomes available,
ideally one can substitute the older feature X with the new
one like replacing a building block or a Lego, and the other
features interact with it right away because the "etiquette"
(interface with other features) for the old and new is the
same.
This modularity concept is popular on a micro and macro scale
in computing. Think of the emerging client/server topology
for computers. Think of the growing interest in the MACH
operating system (see glossary). Think of the customer with
installed computers who wants to install new systems to fit
in with the existing equipment. All this becomes possible
when the "etiquette" (interfaces) are defined between the
different parts of the total system and when modularity
becomes common sense.
Standards to Watch
X/Open was formed when the world's major information system
suppliers, users, systems integrators and software developers
came together to make open systems a practical reality.
X/Open defines a Common Application Environment (CAE) which
insures portability and interworking of applications and
allows users to move between systems without training.
Unequivocally, the standard to watch and pay attention to is
X/Open's Portability Guide (XPG, currently revision 3. XPG4
is due to be published summer 1992.) XPG is the "meta"
standard which enables portability by compiling a set of
relevant standards that address the entire application
environment (the CAE) (see graph 3.1). XPG is the best
standard for guaranteed portability because of its widespread
acceptance. XPG can be considered a multivendor "SAA".
.PA
..picturea:\xpg.gal,65535,49151,10,66,17,
Graph 3.1
XPG consists of several elemental standards combined.
Specifically;
Mandatory Base Components Defining Standard #
------------------------- -----------------
System calls & Libraries POSIX 1003.1
Commands and Utilities POSIX 1003.2 *
C Language ANSI *
Internationalization HP NLS
Extension Components
------------------------
COBOL Language ANSI/ISO
FORTRAN Language ANSI
Pascal Language ISO
ISAM C-ISAM (defacto)
SQL ANSI
Terminal Interface XSI Curses (SVID) @
Window Manager X Window System
Transport Interface XTI (TLI) @
PC Interworking @
Optional Components
-----------------------
Source code transfer (tar, cpio, uucp) @
InterProcess Communication (shared memory) @
ADA Language ANSI-MIL/ISO
# Note: in most cases when the defining standards have user
selectable options, X/Open has clearly defined and specified
stringent implementation guidelines. In general, the XPG is
more rigorous and more elaborate than existing standards.
* indicates that X/Open will adopt when approved and
finalized.
@ indicates when X/Open has defined guidelines due to a lack
of prevalent formal or defacto standards. (Parentheses
indicate technologies from which part of the X/Open defined
guidelines come.)
You can see that XPG includes a more complete computing
environment than any one of the standards alone. That's why
vendors and users alike have agreed on XPG as the standard.
Vendors of all types are committed to following XPG
regardless of their implementation strategy. Those listed
below have demonstrated their commitment by being branded.
"Branded" means that a vendor has passed the XPG verification
test and X/Open has certified compliance with a "brand"
(think of it as a stamp of approval from X/Open).
XPG3 Branded Vendor (in alphabetical order as of 1/92)
Acorn IBM
Altos Computers ICL
AT&T Computer Systems NCR (AT&T)
AT&T Unix Software Operation NEC
Bull Nokia
Data General Olivetti
Dell Santa Cruz Operation
DIAB DATA Sequent
Digital Equipment Corp. Siemens Nixdorf
Fujitsu Stratus
Hewlett Packard Sun
Hitachi Unisys
Interactive Systems Open Software Foundation
IBM Unix International
[24 companies, including nine non-shareholding companies have
now branded]
Industry leaders and members of both OSF (Open Software
Foundation) and UI (Unix International) embracing
XPG will insure its propagation and success as the industry
standard. The best part is that XPG will provide an even
higher degree of software portability than System V Interface
Definition (SVID) did. The SVID was the first attempt (by
AT&T) to document a standard interface to the operating
system. While the SVID was successful, its usefulness is now
limited because it's not widely accepted as a standard for
the entire computing environment- only the operating system.
Many people were frustrated when they first got involved with
standards because they expected levels of software
portability from SVID compliance that can only really be
addressed by XPG compliance.
HP is committed to continuing to adhere to the XPG and
provide practical open systems.
OSF and UI: Technology Suppliers
The Open Software Foundation (OSF) and Unix International
(UI) are two organizations which were formed by groups of
vendors to agree on and utilize a specific implementation of
a standard-based operating system. The two organizations
have similar goals; to be operating system and enabling
software suppliers.
UI's approach is to use Unix System V as the base technology
and to continue to expand System V with new technologies as
they become available. OSF's approach is to take the best of
Unix (portability, scalability, etc.) and fashion it for the
future by using a modular base (MACH), pursuing the best
technologies, and keeping its development process open.
Both approaches have value for customers. The misconception
that exists, though, is that to achieve what customers want
(portability, interoperability, etc.) they must buy all the
SAME operating system. This is not so. This is a perception
of those who don't fully understand the nature of standards
(see "The Nature of Standards" earlier). Having the same
implementation only adds to kernel portability- something
most customers do not require (i.e., customers do not require
the ability to move their operating system from system to
system).
Both OSF and UI are implementation bodies, and their
implementations will adhere to the X/Open standard (see list
of XPG branded vendors earlier). In areas where X/Open
hasn't defined a standard element, OSF and UI are free to
choose their own implementation priorities. Also, as OSF and
UI focus on different areas of technology, each will be able
to take advantage of the technology the other has fostered,
thereby accelerating development cycles and technological
advancements. Customers will be able to see some
differentiation and benefit in who implements which feature
first and how fast. They will be able to choose the
technologies they want in the timeframe they want.
Vendors will also be able to pick and choose the best
technologies from these two core suppliers. Overall
though, customers will definitely benefit by the "friendly
competition" between UI and OSF. It's friendly because each
will take advantage of the other's technology when possible
(UI's system management requirement, "ATLAS", calls for
compatibility with OSF's Distributed Management Environment,
DME. USL may even be using OSF's technology as a basis for
their product. A similar situation exists with OSF's
Distributed Computing Environment, DCE. UI plans to be
compatible with that as well. On the other hand, OSF intends
to comply with the SVID version 3 from UI.) It's competitive
because each organization is pushed to develop new
technologies faster.
The real concern for customers is that they will have to
choose between the two implementations and possibly give
something up permanently (sacrifice or compromise) in the
process. Fortunately, because of the nature of standards and
the existence of XPG, customers won't have to sacrifice
anything. Let's examine the impact of two implementations.
Practically speaking, there are really three areas that
customers are concerned will be different between the two
implementations;
* application portability
* programmer portability
* user portability
(Programmer and user portability is also known as consistent
user and programmer interfaces.)
Application Portability
Application portability is regulated by XPG. Since both OSF
and UI systems follow XPG3, there is a high level of
portability among the implementations from both
suppliers.
Programmer Portability
Programmer portability is also regulated by XPG. XPG is a
set of application programming interfaces (APIs).
Programmers writing for any XPG compliant system will have
the same APIs to write to regardless of whether it's a UI or
OSF box. This is where independent software developers will
be careful - sticking to the XPG guidelines to maintain
portability.
As far as a programming environment (development tools,
programmer interface) goes, there are tools which work with
popular relational databases that run on both UI and OSF
boxes and have the same programmer interface on both. There
are also tools within the operating system that have been
part of "Unix" operating systems as long as they've been
around. Those haven't changed and are still available to
programmers on either system. On top of the database tools
and traditional Unix tools, vendors often add value in this
area by supplying their own tools.
User Portability
User portability requires a common user interface. X/Open
has not specified a standard user interface yet. The OSF
user interface for PC's/workstations is OSF/Motif. The UI
user interface for PC's/workstations is OpenLook. OSF/Motif
is growing in popularity. Realize that most UI vendors ship
OSF/Motif as an alternate to OpenLook with their systems
because customers are demanding it. (Note: Also, third
parties exist which provide the OSF/Motif interface for UI
vendors - e.g., Sun.) The UI Roadmap document of
specifications calls for a merging of OpenLook with OSF's
Motif.
Neither OSF nor UI has defined a specific user interface for
terminals. Individual vendors add value to their systems via
their terminal interface. HP has several user interface
solutions for terminals that expand the traditional
functionality of the terminal and successfully hide the
complexities of Unix from the novice user.
System administration tools are a specialized case of user
interfaces. The question is will a system administrator be
able to administrate both types of systems easily? This is
an area that is in the gap between existing standards and
market needs (although OSF has recently selected technologies
for system and network management, called DME, which will
certainly accelerate the establishment of standard
administration tools especially if UI adopts DME as they have
indicated they will). Today, vendors enhance their systems
with system administration tools because there is no standard
in this area. HP-UX has an especially strong system
administration and management offering for the industry.
(See HP-UX System Management Solutions paper.)
The fact is that there is a great deal of common ground
between OSF and UI; Conformance to the same standards,
pursuit of technologies to address similar areas of user
needs, emphasis on portability and interoperability.
Gartner Group in their Midrange Systems Conference (4/92)
declared that the "Unix wars were over". What UI/USL and OSF
have in common is growing all the time. The same is true for
HP-UX and System V Release 4. (see "HP-UX and System V
Release 4" in this document.)
HP-UX: HP's Implementation of "Unix"
HP is a recognized leader in the Unix industry. This can be
seen not only through HP's significant Unix systems market
share (see graph 5.1) but also from HP's early and
continually active participation with Unix. (HP was first to
ship a Unix systems based computer, first to pass SVVS1,
first to ship XPG3 systems, contributor of accepted
technologies, etc.) HP has mastered a quality implementation
of Unix. HP has pioneered important technologies (NLS,
powerfail-autorestart, user interfaces, etc.). HP has a
first class product and is highly rated by industry watchers.
HP takes advantage of the best technologies available from
OSF and USL for HP-UX.
..picturea:\icnos24.gal,65535,49151,8,70,19,
Graph 5.1
.PA
HP-UX and System V Release 4
With HP's embracing specific OSF technologies, some customers
wonder if HP-UX will still offer features from System V
(especially System V.4). People are interested in HP's
compliance to System V.4 for several reasons: 1) they want a
portability guarantee and they think System V.4 is the
standard to give it to them, 2) they want the latest
functionality and think that System V.4 has it, 3) they are
required to use System V.4 and want to be able to use HP
hardware with it.
Most customers fall into the first two categories. However,
HP-UX has a good story for all three categories.
Portability Guarantee
Plans are for a future release of HP-UX to comply to SVID3
(which defines System V.4) in the '93 timeframe. Compliance
to SVID3 will mean excellent compatibility and portability
with other vendors' System V.4 implementations in addition to
the XPG standard. The Systems V Verification Suite tests
compliance to Volumes 1 and 2 of the Systems V Interface
Definition (SVID). Today, HP-UX complies to 90% of the SVID
for base system and kernel extensions. The remaining
features as well as the few known exceptions for utilities
and libraries, are planned to be delivered with the SVID3
compliant release mentioned above.
Advanced Functionality
Regarding functionality; the main accomplishment of System
V.4 is the merging of Berkeley Unix (BSD) and System V
features which HP did years ago with the introduction of
HP-UX on the HP 9000 Series 800. HP-UX currently includes
many of the major features of System V.4, but also includes
features above and beyond what System V.4 offers. (See below
table.) (Note: "@" indicates features that will be shipping
with HP-UX Release 9.0.)
.PA
Common HP-UX & V.4 HP-UX added
Area of Benefit Features Features
----------------- -------- -------------
Portability POSIX 1003.1 POSIX 1003.2 @
XPG3 FIPS 151
BSD 4.3 features XPG3+
Price/performance process scheduler multiprocessing
shared libraries
Secure Systems -- C2 Security
B1 Security
High Availability virtual file sys. mirrored disks
Automatic processor
switchover
Ease of Use & X.11 OSF/Motif
Administration Disk Quotas HP VUE
Enhanced Admin. OpenSpool
Powerfail/Autorestart
SAM
Localization 8 bit NLS 16 bit NLS
Interoperability NFS 3.2 LM/X
BSD networking OSI X.400
streams @* SNA LU6.2
NCS
Novell
* Streams is currently supported on a limited basis as a
custom product. It will become a standard product 11/92.
In contrast, there is very little that System V.4 has that
HP-UX does not have. (i.e., in the area of Ease of Use and
Admin. there is News and OpenLook; and in the area of
Interoperability there is NFS 4.0 and RFS.) HP's leadership
in technology innovation is substantiated by its having a
track record for having its advanced technologies adopted as
the base for standards. (IEEE 488, NLS, Motif, NCS, NetLS,
etc.). With over 300 employees participating on various
standards bodies, HP has the standards covered, and our
technologies are setting the new standards. There is no one
better to watch for the next emerging technology than HP.
HP-UX and OSF
HP was one of the seven founding members of OSF. HP believes
that the open process, the equitable technology selection and
the technology "snapshots" that are part of OSF's practices
are practical and appropriate for paving the way to open
systems of the future. HP also believes that the sound
technology HP will receive from OSF will benefit its
customers with exciting, revolutionary new products.
HP will continue to pursue supplying OSF technology to our
customers as available and desireable. We were among the
first to deliver OSF/Motif, the graphical user interface
technology and will follow suit with OSF's Distributed
Computing Environment (DCE) in which HP technology plays a
fundamental role (elements of the DCE are already available
to HP 9000 customers). HP will continue to take advantage of
OSF technologies as they provide expanded and important
functionality for HP's customers. HP-UX for the Series 800
will incorporate OSF programming interfaces as they become
available (as has been done with OSF/Motif and soon DCE)
making HP-UX OSF-compliant without compromising commercial
functionality or portability. See fig. 7.1.
..picturea:\osf11.gal,65535,47602,6,67,18,
Graph 7.1
OSF defines its application environment as the "AES"
(Application Environment Specification). Full AES compliance
is planned for the end of 1992 on the HP 9000 Series 700 and
by mid-1993 on the Series 800.
Summary
There are different kinds of standards in the world. It's
confusing if you don't keep in mind that computer application
environment standards define interfaces NOT implementations
and are continually evolving NOT static. X/Open's
Portability Guide (XPG) is the standard that brings the
various elemental standards together and is the
overwhelmingly recognized standard to follow for portability.
HP-UX is an implementation of XPG3. HP-UX will continue to
adhere to XPG as more and more System V.4 and OSF technology
is incorporated into HP-UX, as well as add practical value
for non-standard areas. Finally, HP-UX will provide
portability to all types of open systems.
.PA
Glossary of Terms
ABI Application Binary Interface; An interface that does not
require an application to be recompiled to run on various
systems. e.g., All DOS PCs have the same ABI - you just load
and go.
AES Application Environment Specification; The document from OSF
that details its product's characteristics. (Analogous to
the SVID and XPG.)
ANDF Application Neutral Distribution Format; A project by OSF to
come up with something like an ABI for Unix across multiple
hardware platforms.
API Application Programming Interface; A set of rules that define
the interface between an application and the various elements
of the computing environment.
B1 A level of security as specified by NIST's "Orange Book".
Levels from high security to basic security are A2, A1, B2,
B1, C2, C1 respectively.
B2 A level of security. See B1.
CAE Computer Application Environment; The name of what is
specified by X/Open's Portability Guide.
C2 A level of security. See B1.
DCE Distributed Computing Environment; A set of technologies OSF
has selected to regulate distributed computing.
DME Distributed Management Environment; A set of technologies
OSF has selected to regulate system and network management.
MACH A modular Unix-like operating system kernel that was
developed at Carnegie Mellon for portability, support of
multiprocessing and security.
OSF Open Software Foundation; An impartial organization that
develops and sells a standards-based computer application
environment.
POSIX 1003.1 The IEEE standard that defines the kernel.
POSIX 1003.2 The IEEE standard that defines commands and
utilities (in draft form - approaching adoption).
POSIX 1003.3 The verification tests for the IEEE POSIX standard.
POSIX 1003.4 The IEEE standard that defines real time (draft).
SAA A set of rules IBM is establishing for interoperability
among its own systems.
SVID System V Interface Definition; A document from AT&T that
defined a low level API for initial Unix convergence.
SVVS System V Verification Suite; A set of tests that tested for
compliance to the SVID.
UI Unix International; A consortium of vendors who make
recommendations to AT&T regarding the development of AT&T's
Unix System V.
UNIX A trademark of AT&T. The name of AT&T's operating system.
Also a symbol of open systems and a nickname for a standards
based operating system.
UNIX ROADMAP A document published by UI to communicate its
recommendations to AT&T.
USL Unix Software Laboratories; A division of AT&T's that
produces the Unix System V product.
V.4 AT&T's Unix System V Release 4; The current release of
AT&T's Unix.
XPG X/Open's Portability Guide; A document which specifies the
programmatic details of the Common Application Environment
defined by X/Open.
.PA
HP-UX and the Standards Movement
C. Lemus 5/92
NOTE: The discussion of HP-UX in this document refers to
HP-UX running on the Series 800 systems unless otherwise
stated.