the "competing with ATT/Sun issue"

[Dick Dunn]

Karl Kleinpaste writes:
> I'm really, really tired of hearing all the OSF sponsors moaning that
> "AT&T & Sun's relationship will put all the other companies at a
> disadvantage for N months after release of SysVRel(M+1) while we port
> it to our machines."

I think they are at least accurate in that complaint--they have something
to worry about.  Whether the complaining is justified--i.e., whether they
have any "right" to expect anything different is another question.

> Question: So what else is new?  When was the last time that AT&T
> involved its competitors heavily in a new release of SysV?  How many
> other companies had a significant part in the actual development of
> SysVRel4?  Who helped AT&T with SysVRel3?  What co-sponsors were there
> of SysVRel2?

AT&T has a bizarre--and changing--role in UNIX.  The AT&T/Sun deal and OSF
are just two consequences of trying to figure out how it should work.  AT&T
would like (if we believe their advertising) to have SysV be a standard.
But they would also like to make money.  The 3b's have never been any sort
of serious market force, nor were the UNIX PC's.  Sure, the OSF members
have had to wait for releases, as has everyone else (and Karl pointed this
out).  The alliance with Sun made it appear that AT&T was no longer just a
supplier of (base) software to various other vendors, but a potential
competitor.  They screamed.  If the general idea of OSF, or some non-AT&T
alliance, was a surprise to anyone after the Hamilton Group statements, I
can't imagine why.

AT&T was in a bind--they had become accustomed to seeing their releases
become some sort of de facto standard.  Then they saw their emphasis
changing.  They couldn't help it; it HAD to change.  They couldn't stay
aloof.  At the same time, whatever they did was bound to stir up oppo-
sition.

Similarly, other vendors had to figure out what to do about the potential
of AT&T/Sun leading the game.  Look, folks, you just DO NOT tell IBM, HP,
DEC, etc., that they have to follow you (and wait)!  It's just not on.  It
doesn't matter whether it would make the best technical sense in the world,
or be for the betterment of this the best of all possible worlds--it
doesn't make good market sense.

As several people have pointed out, OSF could be a good thing; it could
also seriously screw up the UNIX community.  What will it do--and who will
determine that?  Interesting questions, but the subject of another
message.
-- 
Dick Dunn      UUCP: {ncar,cbosgd,nbires}!ico!rcd       (303)449-2870
   ...If you get confused just listen to the music play...