home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ub!dsinc!cs.widener.edu!cs.widener.edu!usenet
- From: YOUNG@tattoo.cs.widener.edu (Rob Young)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
- Subject: Unix self annihilation (Was Solaris 2.1 Complaints)
- Message-ID: <1h32rhINNiqo@cs.widener.edu>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 00:24:16 GMT
- References: <1992Dec20.205304.19412@udel.edu> <BzKvAv.AFs@phage.cshl.org>
- Organization: Widener News/Mail Gateway
- Lines: 58
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.cs.widener.edu
- X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
- In-Reply-To: pjm@isis.cshl.org's message of 20 Dec 92 21:49:42 GMT
-
- In <BzKvAv.AFs@phage.cshl.org> pjm@isis.cshl.org writes:
-
- > In article <1992Dec20.205304.19412@udel.edu> scoggin@opus.ee.udel.edu (John K Scoggin) writes:
- > >Technology marches on ... If nothing else, look at it as job security!
- > >
- > > - John
- > >
- >
- > actually i look on it as job survival. i dont want to learn
- > VMS,NT,OS/half. i believe this is the final chance for Unix
- > to gain marketplace support on a survivable scale. Microsoft
- > would love to have OSF/1,Ultrix,AIX,AUX,HPUX keep the Unix
- > camp on the road to self annihilation.
- > --
-
- I believe you will always have slow incorporation of new OS ideas/concepts in
- the Unicees. For example: USL (or OSF) comes up with a new feature, the
- code goes out to vendors of proprietary unicees ( AIX, HPUX, etc.) they in
- turn have their in-house developers patch it into their OS. Also, the in-house
- OS developers are adding their own special touches to make their Uni*
- nice/robust/functional/better.
-
- What if they didn't add their own special touch? Could a company justify their
- own in-house OS developers if they were doing little more than inserting
- USL/OSF code? All unicees will be different (I am no way implying this is bad
- in and of itself but does have drawbacks, see below).
-
- Look at the PC market. In the 80's you had computer stores doing the bulk
- of the sales (and still are), but you can see a trend occuring. Gateway,
- DEC, and even now IBM are getting into direct sales ELIMINATING the MIDDLE
- MAN. Why not do the same for OS's? Why have middle men? Support? Okay,
- that argument worked well at one point but PC buyers became
- sophisticated/aware that you really don't need an IBM, a COMPAQ, etc. for
- support. PC's are a commodity. Are the OS middle men in jeopardy? How
- about in 1996, 1998?
-
- If you create an application that takes advantage of an HP/UX system call, you
- are bound to that OS (unless you do something about it :). Look at AIX,
- stacks and stack of system calls. Little reminders that the calls are unique
- to AIX. If however you write an app that makes use of an NT call, what of it??
- It's only going to run on NT anyhow. You write POSIX compliant apps and avoid
- this kind of thing and write in-house applications to take advantage of
- system calls. Is this correct? Why the wonderful function calls if you
- REALLY can't use them? You really don't want to be bound to a particular OS
- do you??? Doesn't seem to bother Microsoft's thinking (at least they don't
- seem to be suffering a loss of market share). So why the function calls if you
- can't use them? To keep developers busy? :) :) :)
-
- A wonderful struggle is taking shape . . .
-
- Rob
-
-
- young@tattoo.cs.widener.edu
- " I see Dave Cutler, the man who created VMS, every time I go to Seattle. He
- is working on Microsoft NT, which I think is going to be very far-reaching.
- It's going to grab the rug out from under Unix."
- -- Gordon Bell
-