From: andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern)
Subject: Re: Is BSD dead? 
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.202530.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.234159.9790@nic.umass.edu>, a74k110@titan.ucc.umass.edu 
>(Chris Lloyd) writes:
>	[...material deleted...]
>> As to whether it matters if NeXTSTEP is on top of Mach/BSD is a big YES.
>> The AppKit is engrained HEAVILY in Unix and Mach (moreso), IBM had problems
>> putting NeXTSTEP on AIX back in 1.0 days, 2.0 and 3.0 are *entrenched* in
>
>	I would guess that the lack of threads in AIX must have been a good
>	part of IBM's trouble.

<please put a blank line between the article you are quoting and your
response...  it makes it so much easier to read...>

Even if AIX had threads (NT has threads), it's not a trivial task to
port something of the magnitude of NeXTSTEP to another OS (I have
heard that there are about 5 MILLION lines of code in NS 3.0).
NeXTSTEP is not only dependant on the features of Mach, but the
particular way that those features are implemented.

>> Mach and Unix. I really do laugh at people saying "Oh yea, just put it on
>> NT or SYSV, whats the big deal?",
>
>	I'd be a bit amused as well at anyone who thought it would be easy.  I
>	do argue that it's vital to NeXTSTEP's prosperity and perhaps survival
>	to move NeXTSTEP to NT.  But as you say,
>
>> the system is massive, and there are a lot
>> of apps out there, moves to another OS cause enormous problems when features
>> aren't the same, dont behave the same or just aren't there.
>> 
>> Yea, NT, Chorus/SYSV and Mach/BSD are fundamentally the same at a very high
>> level, but putting NeXTSTEP on the first two is like putting a Mercedes
>> body on a '68 Chevy, they are both cars, but there is a hell of a lot more
>> to do than just bolt two big parts together, if they even fit.
>
>	Nice analogy.  I hope it's that easy ;^)  If NeXTSTEP was written with
>	portability in mind, the effort might not be of heroic proportions.  If
>	not, well...  But even if NeXTSTEP goes OK, let's not overlook Display
>	PostScript.  Maybe a joint effort with Adobe?  After all, it's a nice
>	market for them.  Maybe eventually DPS in hardware.
>	[...]
>
>	As always, opinions expressed are my own.

Porting NeXTSTEP to other operating systems is possible, but it will
be very, very difficult.  If NeXT spends all of it's extremely limited
resources on porting NeXTSTEP to another OS, it will not be able to
continue improving and innovating NeXTSTEP.

If NeXTSTEP is to ever succeed, it must at least maintain the
technological lead that it already has over the rest of the industry.
NeXT simply cannot do that if it is busy porting to a different OS.
NeXTSTEP for RS/6000s was a full major version behind NeXTSTEP for
NeXT computers.

If NeXT spends 18 months or 2 years or hovever long it takes to port
NeXTSTEP to NT, NeXT will be where it is today with it's technology,
and will quickly dissappear at the hands of competitors who have
caught up.

Instead, NeXT will continue to lead technologically, and possibly make
a decent dent in the market.  But NeXT has no hope if it tries to port
to another OS.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com     | "We shall not cease from exploration
Andrew Loewenstern      |  And the end of our exploring
Cube Technologies, Inc. |  Will be to arrive where we started
                        |  And know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy