att & osf

[Henry Spencer]

In article <3396 at vpk4.UUCP> scott at attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) writes:
>As I understand it, we were not forced to share any of our developed 
>technologies prior to 1984. We were simply not allowed to make a profit
>from them...

I could be wrong, but my impression is that one of the Consent Decrees
required licensing on reasonable terms to all comers.  I know of at
least one occasion when lawsuits were being considered over possible
refusal to release technology (although of course that may just mean
that the potential plaintiffs were going to try it on speculation).

>> ... there have already
>> been two releases of the SVID, and nobody seriously believes there won't be
>> more...
>There have not been two versions of the SVID, there have been volumes added
>to the SVID to cover developments in various areas...

There most certainly have been two separate publications of it, although I
admit I didn't check them line-for-line for incompatibilities.  It used to
be all one volume, remember?  And adding stuff to the standard definitely
constitutes changing it, from the viewpoint of those who want to claim
compliance.

Note also that the SVID explicitly promises changes in a number of areas
in the future.

>> this is really laying it on a bit too thick.  There are many things AT&T
>> could have done to make hardware independence easier, and they have done
>> very few of them. 
>System V Unix runs on a variety of equipment which is not manufactured with
>or by AT&T. Your arguement that SYSV or SYSV-compatible operating systems only
>run on AT&T equipment is simply wrong.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant.  I didn't say it would not run
on non-AT&T equipment; I said AT&T was making no serious attempt to make it
easy to port it to non-AT&T equipment.  Last time I looked, SysV still had
quite a bit of code that dereferences NULL pointers, a known portability
problem (and coding error) that AT&T has made no effort to fix.  You were
the one claiming that they were bending over backwards to make it portable;
well, when are they going to fix the NULL-pointer bugs?

>The "Red Alert" as you so quaintly put it, was the result of UNIX
>becoming a serious contender in the computer market and the company
>with the most knowledge of it (us) beginning a business relationship
>with a corporation which has displayed a sharp and aggressive ability
>in that market.

It was the result of the company with the most influence on Unix, AT&T,
which is simultaneously the supplier of Unix and the setter of de-facto
standards for it, allying itself with one particular hardware supplier.
Many people see this as a major conflict of interest for AT&T; how can
it remain the paragon of evenhandedness that you claim it is, when it has
climbed into bed with one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others?

>AT&T has in the past, and will in the future, work towards creating a
>UNIX standard which will allow the system to grow to its full potential.

Its full potential as a source of revenue for AT&T.  That is how profit-
making corporations, like AT&T nowadays, work.  This does not necessarily
have anything to do with its full potential as useful software for the
rest of us.  In particular, note that changing the rules regularly, so
that AT&T and its intimate partners consistently stay ahead of the rest
of the manufacturers, is very much in the financial best interests of AT&T
and its stockholders.  AT&T is not a philanthropic institution; it is
required to put the interests of its stockholders first.

>Your comments implying a strategy to control the market or to create a
>proprietary operating system would be humorous, except for the concern
>that someone might actually take you serious.

I am by no means the first one to suggest this, so don't credit me with
any special paranoia or influence.  Ask the OSF people, if you really
want an earful.

>You obviously possess an unfortunate anti-AT&T attitude which is 
>suprising since one of the things which AT&T Canada has started doing
>is to provide a backbone usenet feed into Canada, at currently our own
>expense...

I'm not anti-AT&T, I'm anti-certain-AT&T-policies.  I am pleased and
grateful for AT&T Canada's support of Usenet hereabouts, but I am not
bribable (not at this price, anyway!) and do not see that the two issues
are connected.
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu