From: anderson@randolf.lbl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP-UX 9.0
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:25:07 GMT
Reply-To: anderson@randolf.lbl.gov ()
Distribution: world
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.196.7

In article <1992Aug26.135815.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, olsen_jo@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.200543.28463@riacs.edu>,
okuyama@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Darin Okuyama YR) writes:
|> > This may be a dumb question but: is HP-UX 9.0 going
|> > to be OSF?  Can someone give me some details on what
|> > kinds of MAJOR things are going to change when HP
|> > moves to 9.0.
|> > 
|> > Darin Okuyama
|> > NASA Ames Research Center
|> > 
|> Nope.  OSF revision numbering is in the 1.X range I believe.  The 9.0 will
|> be genuine HP-UX.
|> 
|> John Olsen (Used to work for HP in Fort Collins)
|> olsen_jo@uvadm.uvcc.edu

I've not yet seen what is included in 9.0 yet, but I'm afraid it will not
be OSF/1-ish enough.

I'd like to go on the record as saying that some customers want OSF/1
features ASAP. Such as 1003.4/pthreads (kernel or user level would be fine),
logical volume management, DCE/DFS, ...

It seems interesting that Digital touted OSF/1, then tried backing out
of that (for the MIPS architecture).  The response was an enormous "we want
OSF/1 on our MIPS boxes".  Loud enough that DEC reversed its plans (there
was a fair bit of decision reversal going on at DEC then anyway).  

HP has done similarly.  OSF/1 support is sadly behind schedule, and, seemingly,
diminished in importance to the extent that OSF/1 will (eventually) be
supported at the AES (or API or whatever) level on the existing HPUX kernel.
I've heard several rumours as to why, but I'm curious about the user base's 
response.  I've not heard any particular response to the OSF/1 change of plans
on this newsgroup, for instance.

What happened to the excitement about OSF/1 with it's SMP/threaded
kernel/micro-kernel?  SVR4 and Solaris2.0 appear to have successfully
sold themselves as the OS of the future, with all kinds of great features
(same as OSF/1).  From a marketing standpoint, SUN is doing a fine job
of selling itself.  HP, DEC, and IBM have lost it because they are no
longer the unified opposition under OSF/1.  Rather, they are three companies
trying to play catch up with SUN's marketing might.  (Okay, DEC has really
done OSF/1, and can profit from the micro-kernel stuff being done at OSF
and DEC and what not.  But can DEC do what DEC/IBM/HP set out to do together?)
Note that product superiority is really not the issue here, it's marketing.
And image.

It pains me to think that I'll have pthreads on Solaris2.0 and my SUNs before
my HP700, for instance.  And SVR4 will win.  And leave IBM with its AIX
kernel and OSF/1 AES support, and HP with eventual OSF/1 AES support
with its HP-UX kernel.   And there's still the IBM/Apple challenger.  And
more immediately, NT.   What are HP's long term plans?

 
Any comments??


	Mark Anderson
	Argonne National Laboratory
	mdanderson@anl.gov
From: stroyan@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Stroyan)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:30:33 GMT
Subject: Re: SCO CGI to HP GKS
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA