O'pain Software Foundation: (3) relationship to GNU & openness

[Brandon S. Allbery]

As quoted from <3c3fdf1b.4bee at apollo.uucp> by gallen at apollo.uucp (Gary Allen):
+---------------
| First of all, its unlikely that 7 (ok, 6 1/2) of the worlds giant corporations
| are sufficiently freaked out by GNU that they are out to steal FSF's thunder.
| C'mon, how about a reality break?
+---------------

One reality break, coming up.  It is, of course, good technique to obscure
any competitors... and the name "Open Software Foundation" does so by (1)
implying that AT&T/Sun isn't, and (2) by obscuring the existence of the FSF,
which is potentially their BIGGEST problem.  (Let us hope that the creation
of the OSF causes many companies to fund the FSF!  I wouldn't trust IBM as
far as I could throw it.)

+---------------
| If reality is not your bag (it isn't always mine either), feel free to strike
| fear into the heart of 60 billion/year IBM, 12 billion/year DEC, ......
| Lawsuits? You're talking about the people who invented the word.
+---------------

Awww, poor wittwe IBM!  Maybe it's time IBM got a rude awakening.  I rather
suspect that RMS would be quite willing to do the honors... and the fact
that IBM can afford lawyers doesn't necessarily mean the FSF would lose.

+---------------
| are you unaware that VMS outsells UNIX on VAXen 15 or so to 1? Are you
+---------------

I am given to understand that that is no longer true.

+---------------
| unaware that MS-DOS (PC-DOS if you prefer) is proprietary, the most common OS
| on earth, the most portable, and probably also the worst? While I like FSF
+---------------

"Most portable"?!  And you think *John* needs a reality check?!  The only
reason that MS-DOS runs on so many different kinds of PCs is that they're
all *hardware* clones of each other.  You don't believe me?  Try booting
generic MS-DOS on an old Sanyo MBC-550.  Or on a Tandy 2000.  Or a PCjr.  Or
an Altos 586.  Get the idea?  (You can get modified MS-DOS for three of
them... because the hardware is *sufficiently* close to a PC.  The Altos
box, on the other hand, is too smart for MS-DOS because of its memory
management unit and other features.  MS-DOS in particular requires that
certain things be done in ROM... if they aren't, fat chance!)

+---------------
| The whole market? REALITY dude, REALITY. These 7 companies ARE the vast majority
| of the market. Obsolete IBM, DEC, HP, etc. On second thought, DRUGS dude DRUGS!
+---------------

Oh, I see.  Now let us all kneel and worship the Gods of the Computer.

To put it mildly:  up theirs!

Of *course* they're the vast majority of the market!  And they d*mned well
want to make sure that they have all their customers locked up -- but Unix
has begun to make that impossible.  Of *course* DEC and IBM in particular
will want to derail Unix as soon as possible!

"Why pick on DEC and IBM?"  Because they're the ones with the track records
for shafting their customers -- *especially* IBM, who (not incidentally) is
providing the development base for OSF's FUDnix.  (my name, not theirs)  If
IBM has an overwhelming history of locking its customers into a death grip,
is it not reasonable to assume that they are doing so yet again?  And DEC is
the company which tried to ignore the existence of Unix for as long as
possible, then finally was forced to produce Ultrix -- which is known to be
broken.  And it seems (see other messages in this group, and if there are
any archives of this group you might find them instructive as well) that DEC
has been known to either (1) misrepresent Ultrix in order to force customers
into VMS or (2) simply ignore a customer order for Ultrix and ship them VMS
instead.

Why pick on DEC and IBM?  Because we have only their past actions to go on
-- and based on those past actions, the OSF spells major trouble for Unix.

+---------------
| they wanted, just like DEC, IBM, Apollo, etc. Open?  When was the last time you
| had anything to say about what UNIX is/isn't?
+---------------

4.2BSD, actually.  You will note that BSD features have been popping up in
System V right and left -- vi here, "reliable signals" there, NFS in the
future.

+---------------
| UNIX will not favor particular machine architectures such as SPARC and 3Bx, then
| I'd like to talk to you about some bridges that I have for sale. The idea that
+---------------

And, of course, the fact that UCB won't sell me a copy of 4.3BSD for a
65C816 CPU makes UCB an evil corporate giant, perhaps?  Let's leave out the
arguments which have no relation to the point at hand, please.

+---------------
| Each of the companies involved in OSF have particular needs/focus that must be
| addressed by any PORTABLE OS, which is really what you're after isn't it? For
| instance, whose notion of ISAM files will be used in UNIX? I don't know, do you?
| Perhaps AT&T will get around to it as THEY need it. Otherwise, we have to provide
| interim solutions that our customers will use until there is some sort of
| "standard". Then, our customers will have to rewrite their applications to match.
| Hardly portable.
+---------------

Gee, I could have sworn that AT&T had announced they would support POSIX...
guess the OSF knows better, right?

C'mon, AT&T isn't *stupid*.  4.xBSD vs. System V proved the need for a
standard, that's why there is POSIX.  SVID is an evident failure, else AT&T
wouldn't be working with Sun Microsystems from the other side of the fence.

Let's give the people at AT&T credit for some intelligence.  They would NOT
be integrating with BSD Unix if they wanted to shaft everyone else:  they
could do *that* much more easily the same way they countered termcap with
terminfo.

+---------------
| 	A) Sit in the back of the bus
| 	B) Get off the UNIX bus
| 	C) Start a new bus company.
+---------------

And, to use one of your earlier examples, which of these has been done with
MS-DOS?  Think about it.  (Oh, but of course:  IBM is (was) involved with
MS-DOS, so it must be perfectly all right!  Since they're *not* involved
with Unix, *that* must be horribly evil!)  <-- Can you say "double standard"?
How about "hypocrisy"?  And show me the difference between AT&T-Sun
collusion with DEC, IBM, etc. on the sidelines and Microsoft-IBM collusion
with Compaq, Tandy, etc. on the sidelines.

Think about it.  And then tell me the salient difference between them.
(Hint: IBM)

+---------------
| Put yourself in our place, what would you have done?  And by the way, FSF was never
| considered, thought about, infringed upon, or even mentioned.
+---------------

Which is the most conclusive proof I've seen yet that the "Open" Software
Foundation is a sham.  If the reasons for the OSF were *truly* as stated,
then all those companies would have supported the FSF.  That they didn't
says quite a bit about th eintentions of the member companies....
-- 
	      Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
	{well!hoptoad,uunet!marque,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery
Delphi: ALLBERY						     MCI Mail: BALLBERY