From: YOUNG@tattoo.cs.widener.edu (Rob Young)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Subject: Unix self annihilation (Was Solaris 2.1 Complaints)
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:24:16 GMT
Organization: Widener News/Mail Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.cs.widener.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <BzKvAv.AFs@phage.cshl.org> pjm@isis.cshl.org writes:

> In article <1992Dec20.205304.19412@udel.edu> scoggin@opus.ee.udel.edu (John K Scoggin) writes:
> >Technology marches on ...  If nothing else, look at it as job security!
> >
> >	- John
> >
> 
> actually i look on it as job survival. i dont want to learn
> VMS,NT,OS/half. i believe this is the final chance for Unix
> to gain marketplace support on a survivable scale. Microsoft
> would love to have OSF/1,Ultrix,AIX,AUX,HPUX keep the Unix
> camp on the road to self annihilation.
> -- 

I believe you will always have slow incorporation of new OS ideas/concepts in
the Unicees.  For example:  USL (or OSF) comes up with a new feature, the
code goes out to vendors of proprietary unicees ( AIX, HPUX, etc.) they in
turn have their in-house developers patch it into their OS.  Also, the in-house
OS developers are adding their own special touches to make their Uni* 
nice/robust/functional/better.  

What if they didn't add their own special touch?  Could a company justify their
own in-house OS developers if they were doing little more than inserting
USL/OSF code?  All unicees will be different (I am no way implying this is bad
in and of itself but does have drawbacks, see below).

Look at the PC market.  In the 80's you had computer stores doing the bulk
of the sales (and still are), but you can see a trend occuring.  Gateway,
DEC, and even now IBM are getting into direct sales ELIMINATING the MIDDLE
MAN.  Why not do the same for OS's?  Why have middle men?  Support?  Okay,
that argument worked well at one point but PC buyers became 
sophisticated/aware that you really don't need an IBM, a COMPAQ, etc. for 
support.  PC's are a commodity.  Are the OS middle men in jeopardy?  How
about in 1996, 1998?

If you create an application that takes advantage of an HP/UX system call, you
are bound to that OS (unless you do something about it :).  Look at  AIX,
stacks and stack of system calls.  Little reminders that the calls are unique
to AIX.  If however you write an app that makes use of an NT call, what of it??
It's only going to run on NT anyhow.  You write POSIX compliant apps and avoid
this kind of thing and write in-house applications to take advantage of 
system calls.  Is this correct?  Why the wonderful function calls if you 
REALLY can't use them?  You really don't want to be bound to a particular OS 
do you???  Doesn't seem to bother Microsoft's thinking (at least they don't 
seem to be suffering a loss of market share).  So why the function calls if you
can't use them?  To keep developers busy? :) :) :)

A wonderful struggle is taking shape . . .

					Rob


                                                     young@tattoo.cs.widener.edu
" I see Dave Cutler, the man who created VMS, every time I go to Seattle.  He
is working on Microsoft NT, which I think is going to be very far-reaching.
It's going to grab the rug out from under Unix."
                                                         -- Gordon Bell
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware