Splinter Unix?

[Stan Brown]

> In article <7922 at brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
> >It should be obvious what their real motives are.  It must grate to
> >have to pay AT&T royalties.
> It must also grate to have AT&T try to dictate the exact form
> of the distributed product, with all the conditions in the SysV.3
> licensing agreement.
> 
> >We sure don't need a DIFFERENT system interface.  A true UNIX clone
> >would be okay (although it would lag in picking up new developments),
> >except I doubt they will produce one.
> The press release said that the interface will be based on AIX, which
> is a port of SysV.2.  IBM is already publicly committed to adding
> numerous BSD extensions, and NFS, to AIX.  Is there any indication that
> OSF intends to write a complete, incompatible implementation?
> 
> >I get pissed off at companies that prefer to resort to marketing and
> >legal strategies rather than responding technically.  If they're
> >really going to develop an alternative operating system instead of
> >adding value to an established standard one, it should be SIGNIFICANTLY
> >BETTER than UNIX, not just a small incompatible tweak, or else they're
> >wasting everyone's time.
> What do you think of the Sun/AT&T decision to keep their code secret
> while it's being developed?  I expect that they'll produce a good
> system, but others say that the way they plan to do it will give Sun an
> unfair marketing advantage (several months) over their competitors
> (and uneasy bedfellows).
> 

	Perhaps what they are trying to do is avoid the long drawn out
	disertations that keep standards comitees tied up in knots for
	years.  Perhaps not but I like to think good things untill
	proven wrong.


-- 
Stan Brown	S. D. Brown & Associates	404-292-9497
gatech!sdba!stan
	"vi forever"