From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Is U*IX dead ?
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:47:17 GMT

Some of you guys seem to be a bit confused about the O.S. world....

In article <1973@ltb.ltb.bso.nl>, wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) writes:

>	- Maintenance will be a pain in the ass, since every change has to
>		travel through a huge bureacracy, since every member has to
>		agree. This will increase cost.

Not true,  OSF makes OSF/1 available on several reference platforms (such as the AT 386).  It is then up to member companies to take this technology and port it to their own hardware.  We don't, as a rule, reintegrate their changes.  There is no huge bureacracy,

>		- Their current version is pretty stable

I'm running version OSF/1.02 on a snake, it's been up over 100 days, and yes I do some work on it (Unlike the famous Chorus system which has displayed a login prompt for over 2 years !).  Version 1.1 has a lot of improvements and will be offered by DEC and by IBM and by a lot of small vendors (Thomson will use it as the O/S on some of their Industrial Computers).  I don't know if there is any advantage in NeXT switching to OSF/1, it would certainly make porting U*nix applications easier.

> even the hard-core members of the OSF  (IBM, HP, DEC) are cozying up to USL's > SVR4.2

Not true, USL is porting SVR4.2 to the Dec Alpha (when they get a machine!), USL seems to see itself as a seller of shrink wrapped Unix for desktop machines a la SCO.  DEC itself will offer VMS, OSF/1 (by popular demand) and NT on its systems.

> the one that uses the french Chorus microkernel.

Not true, there is a version of System V rel 4. which runs on Chorus (mix?) but the mainstream kernel that will be offered is a "monolithic" kernel.  This will form the so called "Disentry" (oops I mean Destiny) kernel.  USL's answer to NT.

> From a technical standpoint,would NeXTstep be just as capable running on  
> top of NT or Chorus rather than Mach?

NeXTSTEP could run on Chorus or NT.  Both are microkernels and capable of supporting various OS personalities.  Mach 3.0 would better support NeXTSTEP than either NT or Chorus.

> the rest of the Unix community has gone SVR4

This won't happen.  If you're a hacker and want U*nix to run on your AT try Linux.

SVR4 hasn't been a runaway success, more so considering it's been out since October 1989.

Christopher Lloyd writes:
> I also know for a fact that AT&T has a System V single-server for Mach,

Siemens-Nixdorf USA did this work not AT&T or USL.  This work is research and not intended to be a product, it is also on top of some strange hardware not the AT (although a port won't be too difficult).  The work followed OSF work to 'serverize' the OSF/1 kernel on top of Mach3.0, which SNI had access to as they are an OSF sponsor company.  I believe SNI are now working on the Chorus/SVSVR4 server.

That said I don't think you are going to see too many desktop offerings of U*nix servers on top of either Chorus or Mach 3.0 due to performance issues.

> The banner NeXT carries is Mach/NeXTSTEP, not Mach/BSD.

That doesn't mean a great deal.  The banner on HP-UX says HP-UX not BSD4.2.  I think that there would be a considerably amount of work involved in producing a NeXTSTEP server which also supported the U*nix system call interface which was also free of AT&T and BSD code.

perezc@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>  Is NS3.0 built on top of Mach 3.0?

No, NeXT's line is that Mach 3.0 isn't a stable product yet.  There is some truth in this statement.

>What's more important is that NS be available across several hardware platforms
>and that it provide application interoperability with systems under different
>OS's.  My 2 cents worth.

Yes but Mach 3.0 won't give you that.  You would also need an O/S personality (call it NeXTSTEP if you like) that supports POSIX, XPG, SVID blah blah blah, that's a lot of work (and, if you believe the companies that post here not neccesary to the NeXT marketplace).


Alex Raftis writes: 

> The BSD feel of the NeXT is because they chose to implement the top
> layer of their OS as BSD.

No they took Mach 2.0 which was developed from BSD.  They have taken some Mach2.5 features.  Mach 3.0 is a separation of Mach 2.5 into microkernel and server, the server layer being the original (USL encumbered) BSD kernel.  Since then CMU have produced a server based on the BSDI unencumbered kernel, the basis of which is subject to an AT&T lawsuit.  CMU have stopped distributing this "free" server. 

Mach 2.6 ? isn't that Mt Xinu's Mach 3.0 offering ?

> Were BSD to completely die (which is doubtful considering it's free)

No, you need a System V licence from USL to get a BSD licence.

David


Disclaimer:

I represent no-one !