O'pain Software Foundation: (1) problems with AT&T

[Roger B.A. Klorese]

In article <10976 at steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen at crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Honestly, are there that many people who insist on having a new
>machine the moment a new version of the o/s is available? If a group is
>running Suns, or Apollo, or PC/RT, will they change just to get
>something a few months earlier?

Some groups are *always* buying systems, and they want to be as sure as
possible that each system they buy has the latest features they can get,
no matter the vendor.  This is especially true in universities and
research labs.  We are selling in some situations where people are deciding
which machines to add to their networks next winter based on our plans for
follow-on products during the two years following.
 
>  It looks to me as though currently AT&T has had the source code
>earlier than anyone else, and that obviously has not let them dominate
>the hardware market. 

That's because AT&T can't build computers, or to be fair, has given no
evidence of being able to build or price them based on the 3B series.
The real fear is that Sun will have a source code advantage with somewhat
competitive hardware.

>  I think it would be justified to (a) have AT&T release a "work in
>progress" source when something reasonably works, (b) give the final
>version as a set of deltas, so that customized code could be upgraded,
>and (c) hold release of the SRVR4 until 3 months after the code was
>frozen to give other vendors a chance to be in the right timeframe.

This is a reasonable idea, but only if it is practiced for *every* release.
Also, three months is nowhere near sufficient lead time for some companies
to beta-test and package a release.

>  Of course NONE of the big players has the user in mind, except as a
>source of revenue. If they can do something for the user while not
>hurting sales, or helping a competitor, they will for good will, but
>don't expect them to say "it's only money."

Finally, a user with a rational understanding of a vendor's position.
 
>  AT&T said somewhere (or was quoted as saying) that at some time they
>might turn UNIX over to a marketing group, vendor independent. Perhaps
>some of the best people could be stationed on such an organization, mush
>as Sun and AT&T are sharing people and code now.

Too bad they didn't come up with this *before* OSF...

>  Finally I think that OSF is a clear effort to infringe on the repution
>of FSF, and that it should be promptly renamed or sued.

Interesting... most of the people watching OSF in the user community have
never even heard of FSF.
-- 
Roger B.A. Klorese                           MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk  25 Burlington Mall Rd, Suite 300
rogerk at mips.COM                                     Burlington, MA 01803
I don't think we're in toto any more, Kansas...          +1 617 270-0613