O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T?

[Glenn Weinberg]

I never, ever, thought I'd see the day when the great majority of people
on Usenet would come to the opinion that AT&T had their best interests
at heart!  I continue to be amazed at how so many people are just gobbling
up the AT&T corporate line on the effects of OSF on the Unix* market.

I realize that I will get severely flamed for these opinions, but for what
it's worth here are my ideas on several of the points that have been
discussed by a variety of people:

1) Timing of releases

	Contrary to what some people have claimed, the circumstances
	surrounding the timing of releases HAVE changed recently.  Prior
	to the OFFICIAL announcement of the AT&T/Sun merger, SVR4 and
	ABI's, (which was quite recent, not a couple of years old as at
	least one person has implied) AT&T did get a head start on the
	rest of the industry, but basically no other vendors were favored.
	As of SVR4, Sun in particular, and other vendors with ABI's to a
	lesser degree, would be favored.

2) ABI's

	Now, you say, "well, why doesn't everyone just sign up for an ABI,
	then?"  The answer is simple: because AT&T wouldn't let them.
	AT&T alone decided which vendors it would sign ABI agreements
	with.  I can't provide much more detail than that, but I think
	you can guess what the criteria were if you look at the list of
	founding members of OSF.  (And by the way, AT&T isn't just giving
	away ABI agreements for free, either.)

	Also, keep in mind why the Hamilton group got together in the
	first place.  Initially, THERE WAS TO BE ONLY ONE ABI--THE
	SPARC ABI.  AT&T had to retreat from that position when they
	saw the reaction, and opened up the ABI idea to other vendors.
	Of course, in the process they eliminated ABI's greatest
	attraction, that of being able to provide shrink-wrapped software
	for Unix.  (Now, AT&T and probably Sun will deny that a SPARC-only
	ABI was ever their intention, but if you believe that, I too have
	a bridge to sell you.)

3) Vendor neutrality

	Many people have commented on the fact that OSF will be dominated
	by IBM and DEC.  This shows a clear lack of understanding of
	how OSF will be structured.  OSF is an independent foundation,
	with its own board, president and technical director.  In many ways,
	it's set up like MCC, for those of you who are familiar with that
	organization.  IBM and DEC will be board members just like everyone
	else.  They will still have only one vote each.  Furthermore,
	the actual technical decisions will be made by the president and/or
	technical director, not by the board or by a committee.  If the
	board decides the president and/or technical director show a bias,
	they can fire them.

4) Porting base

	Yes, it has been stated that AIX will be the base software for the
	OSF version of Unix.  But all of the members of the OSF will be
	contributing software to the foundation, and all will have the
	resulting whole ported to their systems.  So there will be an
	advantage to being a member of the OSF, but anyone can join the OSF,
	unlike the ABI club, where AT&T has exclusive control over the
	membership.


5) Licensing

	Anyone who has seen the changes in the licensing agreements for
	System V from SVR1 through SVR3 must understand one of the
	greatest motiviations for creating the OSF.  AT&T has arbitrarily
	changed the definition of Unix, how it can be distributed, to
	whom it can be distributed, what it costs, etc., etc.  Major
	portions of the system have been unbundled or dropped altogether
	(e.g., DWB, man pages--did you know that the SVR3 license does
	not allow you to ship man pages?)  What will they change next?

	Of course it's possible that the OSF will play the same games,
	but I don't think they will, and besides, the MEMBERSHIP has
	control over the OSF's licensing terms.  Only AT&T has control
	over AT&T's licensing terms.

6) Standardization

	Sorry, the AT&T/Sun effort doesn't result in standardization either.
	First, even if you grant portability over all the ABI's (which I
	don't), as discussed above, not all vendors will be allowed to
	have an ABI.  Second, there is already the question of POSIX.
	Third, since AT&T has shown no propensity to accept input regarding
	the contents of future releases, each vendor has been forced to
	extend Unix in its own way.  This is standardization?  At least
	with OSF I see the POSSIBILITY of setting up working groups to
	define and implement standard versions of market-specific extensions
	to Unix.

I wanted to present my opinions to the net, especially since I do not (nor
have I ever) worked for any of the OSF members and therefore consider myself
to be at least somewhat neutral.  It has pained me to see all the negative
publicity surrounding OSF, and maybe even more, the positive light in which
AT&T has been portrayed recently.  It is my humble opinion that AT&T has, in
fact, precipitated the new "divisiveness" in the Unix community with its ABI
creation, and that OSF is a positive reaction to this problem.  Obviously,
there are many others who disagree with me, but hey, life wouldn't be any
fun otherwise!

So, I've said my piece, and I'm ready.  Fire away!

	Glenn Weinberg
	Manager, Operating Systems Development, Series 32000
	National Semiconductor Corporation

STRONG DISCLAIMER:  I speak strictly for myself.  I do not mean to imply in
		    any way a commitment by National Semiconductor to OSF
		    or, in fact, to any of the opinions expressed above.

(Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T.)
-- 
Glenn Weinberg					Email: glennw at nsc.nsc.com
National Semiconductor Corporation		Phone: (408) 721-8102
(My opinions are strictly my own, but you can borrow them if you want.)