From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: net.views -- which vendor is most open -- responses
Organization: Open Systems Today
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:35:18 GMT

       Which computer and/or operating-vendor has the greatest
       commitment to open systems? Which has the least? Why?


     This question is being posted to gather responses for a regular
 opinion column in OPEN SYSTEMS TODAY called "net.views."

     By posting a response to this topic, you are granting
 permission for OPEN SYSTEMS TODAY us to publish your response. A
 compilation of the responses to this post will be posted here about
 two weeks from today.

     Please include in your response your name, your employer or
 university, your job title or class standing (that is to say, if
 you identify yourself as a student, are you a freshman, sophomore,
 junior, senior, graduate student?), and a telephone number where
 you can be reached during the daytime (overseas readers note:
 that's daytime in North America).

     Please be brief; try to limit your responses to two screens
 (24x80) of text, not including headers and other administrivia.

     Thanks!

                         -- mitch w.
--
Mitch Wagner, senior editor, Open Systems Today
2353 Massachusetts Ave. Suite 47, Cambridge, MA 02140
wagner@utoday.com  (617)547-8485  CIS:70212,51  GEnie:MITCH.WAGNER  
For subscription information, please call 516/562-5882





From: Ajay Shah <almaak.usc.edu!ajayshah@uunet.UUCP>

You should do a poll on these lines.

My vote:

Sun > HP > IBM > DEC/Microsoft.

-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu

From: Alan Braggins <swordfish!alanb@uunet.UUCP>



Greatest - GNU, assuming they actually get as far as releasing a full OS.
Least - hmmm, possibly Psion. Running their own OS, on their own hardware,
with no announced intentions or marketing claims of anything "open".

From: Andy Feibus <amf@amfent.gwinnett.com>

Hi Mitch.

Here's how the vendors really think of themselves in terms of "open":

Sun: We're the most open because more people buy our workstations than
anyone else's.  And because we follow more standards than anyone else.
Look: our boxes use the standard SPARC processor, have the standard NFS 
and RPC, run the standard OpenLook window manager, and are about to use 
the standard SVR4.  Who cares that we created (or helped create) all 
these standards?  We follow them!

DEC: We're more open because we're part of more vendor consortiums and
standards bodies than all other vendors COMBINED.  Heck, our stack
of "open systems" press releases this year is larger than the VMS 
manual set!  How's THAT for commitment!

HP: We're more open because we've been committed to UNIX since 1983.
What do you mean, what about MPE, DOMAIN/OS, and RTE?  Those aren't 
important to us, we just use them to make money.  UNIX is really where
our heart is.  Oh, yeah, and we're smarter than all the other vendors, too.

IBM: We're the most open because we're bigger than all the other
companies COMBINED.  Follow a standard?  Only after we patent the 
ideas behind it.

SGI: We're more open because we use the Mips processor in our box.  Oh,
wait, we bought them didn't we?  Umm, how about that we license GL?
... oh, never mind.

Microsoft: IBM and OS/2 SUCK!  Windows NT RULES! Uh, what was the 
question again?


--------------------

Of course, since I already get space in OST, don't bother to print
this, since this is a personal missive and not a Letter to the
Editor (or to net.views).  On the other hand, if you want to put
it on the etc page, have a bunch of fellow OST folks add their thoughts
beforehand, since I'm sure I left stuff out.

Happy trails!
-- Andy.
andyfe@utoday.com

From: Barbara Dyker <barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu>

Vendors which are migrating to a UNIX OS developed specifically as
a technical evolution (OSF, plan 9, Mach, bsd4.4) have (IMNSHO)
the "greatest commitment to open systems."  Of the big four, Sun,
DEC, HP, NeXT, that would specifically be DEC and HP (tied for 1st
place).  However, having worked with all of the big four computers,
both DEC and HP tend to throw in too much incompatible "value added"
junk.  NeXT would show up a real close second on my list since they
have a good "least common denominator" operating system, are
incorporating that which makes sense (mach), adding *real* value,
and support porting their value added software to other vendor
platforms, eg. netinfo is available on Suns, NeXTstep will soon be
on intel hardware.

Sun has the least commitment to open systems (last place of big
four).  They are moving from being the forger of the systems of
tomorrow to abandoning the evolution and maturity they have created
for an immature "good ol' boy" boondoggle.  SVR4 is an OS born of
board room deals, not evolving technology.  Already it's release
has been delayed years, not months.  My definition of "open systems"
does not include reinventing the wheel and forcing everyone to use
the new wheel because the old wheel is no longer supported.  Sun
(and AT&T) is/are simply taking advantage of their installed base
to set the hook and ensure their future bottom line.  AT&T's reason
is clear: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  Sun's reason can only
be one thing: the price was right.  It will backfire; SVR4 will
end up like VMS.  Sun inventions such as NIS and NFS were popularized
because they were useful and made sense.  The switch to SVR4 won't
be considered useful, just necessary to keep your support contract
or stay compatible with others who do.


Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
Computing Systems Manager              Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
barb@cs.colorado.edu                   University of Colorado
(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430

[also president of the Rocky Mountain NeXT User Group]


From: Bert Driehuis <ooc.uva.nl!driehuis@uunet.UUCP>



One company deserves a special mention: BSDI. Their BSD/386 system with
full source code to the OS and tools is the ultimate openness. You find
a bug? You fix it, if you're so inclined. This is marvelous after years and
years of dealing with "yes it's a known bug, it will be fixed in version
5.143, which we'll release around St Michaelmas, and which you'll get for
a handling charge of US$999" type of suppliers.

Runner-ups are Sun (for their past efforts to push interoperability and
networking) and NeXT (for using free software as the basis for their 
operating system, and not making a secret of it).

I won't comment on companies that hamper openness. After all, the net.views
column shouldn't take all pages of OST, should it?

Bert Driehuis, PlayBeing Intl, Leiden, The Netherlands

-----
Bert Driehuis
Morssingel 243
2312 EX  Leiden
The Netherlands
E-mail driehuis@ooc.uva.nl
   with BSMTP 

From: CSYSPCN <mvs.oac.ucla.edu!CSYSPCN@uunet.UUCP>

I'd say OSF was the most open vendor.

I'ts a vendor, and if the open concept fails, it fails.

If you buy the above, then by extention those vendors which have
brought OSF technologies to market are the most open.

I don't know about DEC,  IBM has brought AIX/ESA to market, this is
and OSF/1 based system.  It offers Motif, and has committed to makeing
DCE available everywhere.

Pete Nielsen
Functional Area Specialist


From: Charles Tarzian <east.hudtech.com!ct@uunet.UUCP>

Hey Mitch_

That's an easy one.  Sun by far is the most committed to Open Systems and 
bringing Open Systems thinking into that larger world.  No one else comes 
close.  In fact, the other big players(HP, DEC, IBM, Microsoft)  all have reason
not to genuinely support Open Systems.  As far as the least supported I would 
to say DEC and IBM are pretty close on this one.  They are both playing
heavy catch-up and in the case of IBM, the RS-6000 group is being stabbed in
the back by the AS-400 folks, and for good reason.  AS-400's have brought
the bacon home for the company.  At a fraction of the cost, the RS6000 steals
the profit thunder.  DEC seems headed down for the count, as well.  Remember,
Sun has had to make no direction adjustments.  They sell 100% Open Systems,
compare that to meager percentage of Open Systems hardware IBM and DEC sell.

One more thing, Microsoft is counting on the kind of hype and misrepresentation that headlines like Byte's: "Is Unix Dead?", and Open Systems Today's 
NT survey.  The survet was very misleading.  In fact, the percentage 
surveyed doesn't reflect market reality.  Sun has a 40% share, so if we are
to take OST's word that the overall response was very vendor loyal, then 
close to 40% of the market will be owned by Sun, while the rest fight it out.
Given OST's abundant coverage of NT, it becomes clear to the avid reader that
NT will be a nice desktop OS.  It will never compete in the realm of 
industrial strength apps.  I see it as the Netware of OS's, reliable low level
performer(compared to a major RISC machine running UNIX).


Charlie Tarzian
Vice President
HudTech


From: Daniel L Grillo <cs.psu.edu!grio@uunet.UUCP>




I'm Dan Grillo
Senior Research Technologist
Penn State Computer Science
(814) 865-0994


What is an "open system"?


Does something have to be widely used to be "open"?
Does something have to be free to be "open"?
Does something have to be good to be "open"?
Does something have to come with source code to be "open"?
Does something have to be public domain to be "open"?
Does something have to run on lots of vendors computers to be "open"?
Does something have to run on lots of operating systems to be "open"?
Does something have to be declared "open" by a marketing person to be "open"?



Is PostScript open?
Is TrueType open?

	If PS is considered open, why isn't TrueType?  

Is Unix open?
Is MSDOS open?

	If Unix is open, why isn't MSDOS?  What's the difference?
	Both cost money from a single vendor.


Is TCP/IP open?
Is IPX open?
Is AppleTalk open?

	Whats the difference?  They are all networking protocals.
	I use them all from a single Unix computer.  I use them all
	from a single PC.  I have public domain programs
	for all of them.


Is NFS open?
Is Novell open?
Is AppleShare open?

	Again, what's the difference?  All cost money.  All can
	be used from lots of difference operating systems.
	

Is emacs open?
Is WordPerfect open?

	Both run on lots of difference operating systems, and lots
	of vendors' computers.  One costs money.


				--Dan
--
 Dan Grillo   grio@cs.psu.edu   [NeXTmail, PrivateMail, MIME welcome]


From: Dave Williams <exu.ericsson.se!exudnw@uunet.UUCP>


Greatest commitment: Sun Microsystems (and Planets).  Without Sun, the 
current plethora of "I'm more open than you" claims would never have 
happened.  Sun was championing interoperability when IBM, DEC, HP, etc. 
were still whining "buy us, we can solve all your problems with our
proprietary systems if only you get rid of all those other vendor's stuff".

Well done, Sun.


Least commitment: Sun Microsystems (and Planets). Success has spoiled Sun
in some very important ways.  The very attention to giving users what they
want that made Sun such a success has been replaced by a corporate salespeak
that seems to originate from the bowels marketing.

It's one thing to be visionary, but quite another to be techno-facist. Sun
needs to continue to innovate, but not at the expense of their considerable
hardware and software installed base.  Forcing Solaris 2.x and other 
unproven half-baked marketing-inspired products on users is just plain
dumb.  Sun seems to have learned much of it's current strategy from the IBM
of 10 years ago.

Don't give in to the dark side, Sun.


= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =

From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.on.ca>


The commitment of all vendors to open system, in my opinion, begins and
ends at their self-interest. If the marketplace wasn't insisting on open
systems, specifying it in RFPs and excluding vendors who can't work with
others, it wouldn't happen.

But judging "levels of commitment" is a useless excersise. Either a vendor
provides (or at least supports) the necessary tools for co-operative
computing or it doesn't. The rest is sales babble.

Having an "open system" these days is like being "environmentally
friendly". It's a motherhood issue, which nobody in their politically
correct mind would contradict. And it's such a vague term that anyone,
including your magazine, can twist its meaning into any form that will
suit their needs.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / 
   "This Used To Be My Playground" -- Madonna, singing about mens' washrooms

From: Gene Kochanowsky <aee!gene@uunet.UUCP>







In the realm of unix, I would have to say Sun had the greatest commitment. As to
the question of who has the least, that is more difficult, due to the ever
increasing number of players in this field. However if I were to take a guess
I would say it was IBM.

	Why do I say that Sun is the most open. The machine that I am responding
to you on is a SparcStation2, it is running Sun OS 4.1.2 from Sun. It is a very
nice machine, and it was not made by sun, yet it is a perfect clone, in that it
has the blessings of Sun in the form of SCD 1.1 compliance. SunSoft is very
close to completing Solaris 2.0, which is based on an open standard SVR4, and is
also porting the operating system to the Intel/PC architecture. I have
heard reports in the press (of course not totaly reliable), that SunSoft will
eventually port this OS to other CPU's like RS6000, HP PA-RISC, etc. For a
relatively small fee, any electronics manufacturer can get just about everything
they need to make a Sparc2. I do not know of any other Unix system manufacturer
that appraoches these levels of openess.

	As I stated ealier, the least open is more difficult. My coice of IBM is
due to thier long history (one of the longest) of proprietary systems. In the
area of Unix, they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming to the party. If it
wasn't for the fact that the US Government made Unix a standard, I am not sure
that IBM would have any Unix offerings today. IBM's marketing strategy of FUD,
fear uncertainty and doubt, is well known and documented. These are not the
methods of an open systems player.

Gene Kochanowsky
President, Associated Electronics Engineers, Inc
2864 Cercy Trace
Tallahassee, FL 32308
email:  gene@aee.com

From: George White <george@bodnext.bio.dfo.ca>

I am an applied mathematician at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography
and also the President of UniForum Atlantic, a regional UniForum
Affiliate.  The opinions below are, however, my own.

SGI deserves a top rating for the support they provide (largely via
their involvement in usenet news) to users who are having problems
with interconnection of systems from different vendors.  Too many
vendors try to avoid resposibility for such problems.  SGI generally
has a reasonable explanation of what the problem is.  They are 
open about how their systems actually work, which makes it easier
to solve problems.

Security, particularly for hosts attached to the internet, is one 
of the biggest headaches for open systems users.  You can't rely on
obscurity to protect you -- there are people out there who know more
about your system than you and most of the vendor's people put 
together, and they will find holes.  Most vendors use interoperablity
as an excuse for delivering systems in a "wide open" configuration.
"Open systems" should not become a synonym for insecure.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------
George N. White III              |Internet: GWhite@BIOnet.BIO.DFO.ca
Biological Oceanography Division |  DFOnet: BIOnet::GWhite          
Bedford Institute of Oceanography| Omnet/Telemail: (see Sprintmail)  
P.O. Box 1006                    |                                    
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia           |                                  
CANADA               B2Y 4A2     |                                
Sprint=(C:usa,A:telemail,P:internet,ID:<gwhite(a)bionet.bio.dfo.ca>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gerben Wierda <gerben@mr_ed.rna.indiv.nluug.nl>

Name: Drs. Gerben C. Th. Wierda (The Netherlands)
Job: Business manager
My company is of the opinion that we are free to express personal  
views, but they should not be linked to our company (3500 employee  
software organisation) since these views might be to the  
(dis)adavantge of one of our clients with respect to others. So my  
company should not be mentioned.
Telephone: You could try (+31) 35 833539 between 1300-1600 Eastern US  
time, in the early morning you could try (+31) 2154 84414

I use * to denote italics at a few places. If it is too long, please  
ask me to shorten it.



Open Systems is largely a hoax. Not by the people from magazines, or  
standard bodies. But from the vendors, it is. There is a very simple  
reason for this: competition. If everything is the same, the only  
competition is price. That is nice for the users, but not for the  
vendor. So *no* vendor, especially not the ones shouting "open" at  
the top of their voice is in fact open.

Take Digital. Open VMS, is that open? It is POSIX compliant. Does  
that mean that you can take a VMS application and port it easily to a  
Unix box that is POSIX compliant too? No way. To get anything useful  
done under VMS, you still have to do VMS calls. And the reverse is  
true too, of course. And it remains true when using XPG3. Or TCP/IP  
and NFS instead of DECNET. Or Motif instead of DECWindows.

Take Sun, the open systems champion. Sun uses X, true. But Sun also  
uses NeWS, it's *own* extension to PostScript. Does Sun Answerbook  
run on an X terminal? No it doesn't. Is Sun open? No it is not.

There is a simple measure for open: how easy is it for you to change  
your current platform for another. Look at what is hindering you. You  
will see something on every platform. That is the added value any  
vendor will stress to the outmost.

Apart from benchmarks and "object-orientedness", "open" is the most  
misused word in the information industry. Bill Gates will tell you NT  
is open, since it runs on different platforms. Is there an  
independent vendor of NT? ORACLE will tell you they are open. Have  
you ever heard managers complain about the cost of *keeping* an  
ORACLE environment? (not buying one, they are clever of course.) Sure  
ORACLE will do SQL. Have you ever seen anybody actually *use* SQL? 


Have you ever heard vendors sell their product? They will stress the  
*extras*, the things that make them better than the competition, the  
things that make them in fact incompatible and which will make  
switching difficult.

Now to the question: which vendor has the greatest commitment to open  
systems, which one has the least? Two vendors fight for the "least"  
position on my chart. Digital is probably number one, because of  
their apparent return to VMS. Microsoft is another, because of NT. 


What I especially abhore is vendors shouting "open" all over the  
place. That is why Digital ranks lower than Microsoft (they at least  
have the decency until now to refrain themselves from calling the  
upcoming NT open. However, Bill Gates has a history of misusing  
popular ideas. To cite Philippe Kahn from Borland: The only thing  
object-oriented about (Microsoft's) OLE (Object Linking and  
Embedding) is its name). Sun, I hate to say it, is one of the pack.  
Shouting "open" everywhere, but at the same time having their Open  
Windows (which is non-open NeWS based) as their primary asset.

I think it is unnatural for a vendor to have a great commitment to  
open systems. They will have as little commitment as possible. What I  
like is a vendor that does not lie about them. NeXT is my favourite.  
They seem to have a sound attitude to "open". Do what is necessary  
(TCP/IP, NFS, C, C++, POSIX, BSD-interface) and leave the rest to  
third party (X for instance). But the main reason I like their  
attitude best, is the fact that they aren't involved in the "open"  
marketing hype and deliver the best connective (NFS, DOS floppies,  
Novell, Appletalk) system at the same time.

From: Hardy <golem.ps.uci.edu!hardy@uunet.UUCP>

Obviously your neighbors in Technology Square
Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation (as long as you comply
with some of their idiosyncrasies), and project GNU. 

Second, the small but rather vociferous NeXT community:
Almost all software on the NeXT is included and the rest is available
over the Internet (the only thing I have had to pay for is an
X-windows program with OSF Motif -- I did not like the pubic domain
XNeXT.

Third is HP-UX  --- my gripes with HP are the fact that they charge
extra for the ANSI-C compiler, and have outrageously high prices for
software support (one hardly needs hardware support --- the stuff is
so reliable). As for "Open"-ness HP is open by definition since it is
part of OSF. 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt --- after all we academics are
not big spenders on software, rather do-it-yourselfers. 

Hardy 
-----
Meinhard E. Mayer (Prof.) Department of Physics, University of California
  Irvine CA 92717-4575, USA Phone:                                         

From: Holtzman David <Holtzman_David@bethesda.bah.pc.niaid.nih.gov>


David H. Holtzman
Associate
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
(301) 907-4005
-----------------------------

In response to your request for opinions on vendor's commitments to 
Open Systems, I offer the following:

NeXT, hands down.  Why, you ask?  NeXT has demonstrated a willingness to 
bend over backwards to comply with every standard that the user 
community, (read "marketplace") has asked for.  Their approach has been 
that of iterative compliance to standards, rather than a shotgun 
conformance.  If enough customers clamor for something, they will 
generally provide it.

Cases in point:

  Government customers told NeXT that they needed GOSIP and POSIX 
  compliance to sell in the federal marketplace.  (They were probably 
  wrong, but NeXT did the work anyway.)

  NeXTStep 3.0 supports ISO 9660, RockRidge, High Sierra, Apple HFS CDs, 
  PC disk formats, Mac disk formats, NeXT UNIX floppy disk formats, 
  Apple talk, NFS, AFS(3rd party), DAT tapes, cartridge tapes, pretty 
  much any SCSI peripheral, most popular printers, etc.

  NeXT responded to user requests for generic printer conformance by 
  opening up their support for non-NeXT printers, even though they sell 
  2 of their own.  Compare this to IBM, (graphic.com in DOS still only 
  supports IBM printers).

---------------------------------------------------------------
               Least commitment to open systems

SUN

SUN has to be one of the most proprietary hardware/software companies 
that is still in business today.

SUN's continued pushing of Open Windows as some sort of GUI standard 
instead of MOTIF is hurting the UNIX community.  While I am not a big 
MOTIF fan, and I do not believe that OSF is a philanthropic 
organization, it least it contains more than one major participating 
company.  I have heard that SUN salesman who even mentioned that MOTIF 
would run on SUNs were subject to disciplinary action.  It's probably 
also time to drop NEWS and adopt display postscript.

Solaris 2.0 will not even be providing a c compiler.  Therefore 
nontechnical customers will have that much more trouble adding in third 
party or public domain software (most of which has to be 
uncompressed and "made").  Of course the standard Sun C compiler never 
conformed to ANSI C standards anyway.

SUN has been responsible for many good ideas and innovations, some of 
which have even become standards (NFS), but they seem to be slow to 
adopt those of others.
From: "Marcus J. \"Buddy can you spare a clue?\" Ranum" <decuac.dec.com!mjr@uunet.UUCP>

From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. "Buddy can you spare a clue?" Ranum)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center

	I guess this is a toughie, but I'd prefer to see Open Systems Today
propose a definition of "Open Systems" that we can all live with an
that actually has some meaning *before* we engage in a jolly round of
flamage about who is more "Open".

	What *IS* an "Open System"??
	----------------------------
Is it?
	Volume and functionality:		DOS/windows
Is it?
	Cheap:					DOS/windows
Is it?
	Free source code:			Linux and whatnot
Is it?
	Licenseable source code:		Anything, *IF* you have the $$
Is it?
	POSIX compliance:			Loads of things
Is it?
	UNIX:					which? UNIX(R) is a trademark..
Is it?
	Runs on a huge range of platforms:	POSIX?
Is it?
	A marketing buzzword:			Ask "Open Systems Today"?
Is it?
	A checklist item for an RFP		Everything is "Open"



	I've heard EVERY SINGLE ONE of those categories of "definitions"
used, and not in fun. If you ask which vendor has the greatest commitment
to the above, then you're an idiot or worse.

	A survey question such as this makes me really wonder if the
folks at "Open Systems Today" know what they're "Today" about. It is
a given that any vendor's answer to "Who is most committed" is "MEMEME!!"
It is a likelihood that any user's answer is going to be "whatever I like"
because "Open" here is almost synoymous with "is good", it's such a
broad brush. Just pretend it's an election year and you're asking a
bunch of pols "Who is most *MORAL*?" - yep, you're gonna get a really
meaningful response.

	Why don't you guys argue about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin, or something that someone can say something intelligible
about.



mjr. - Who personally, deeply, truly, utterly is committed to "Open Systems"
I believe computers should have lots of nice ventilation holes in them, but
not too many.

From somewhere!spf.trw.com!thomsen Thu Sep 10 21:21:05 1992
From: Mark Thomsen <thomsen@spf.trw.com>

Mitch

You posted a request on the net. Here's my best response.

An open system is one that plugs into a common network andhandles the
file system and file formats found there (both as sender and
receiver). This interoperability is essential to networked computing,  
which is the most fundamental aspect of "openess" in the environment  
we have and the environments our customers have. (If the computers  
are stand-alone, I am unsure there is an "openess" issue that really  
matters).

Beyond that, openess is common interfaces (beyond the networking  
above) provided so the same software can work on many platforms - so  
that custom software can be written in one place and brought up in  
many other places. And openess is the run-time interoperability of  
programs - direct data exchange (non-file) and more sophsticated  
protocols.

To generalize there is sharing of data (99% is files), sharing of  
programs, and sharing of program level "dialogs". These dialogs cover  
client-server relationships between databases and applications across  
networks. A closed system is one that does not share (as sender,  
receiver, or conversationalist). A computer or operating environment  
is more open as it shares in more ways with more systems.

Answer 1: I would say NeXTSTEP is becoming the most open all-round  
operating environment. The network plugs into Ethernet/TCP/IP/NFS  
real well and does the file-level sharing with Unix platforms, DOS  
platforms (embedded Novell stuff), and sharing with Macs (embedded  
Apple stuff) as receiver and with Unix platforms as sender. ISDN is a  
look towards the future, but continues this nondenominational  
interoperability philosophy. The OS is approaching GOSIP/POSIX, there  
are three X11 vendors, and is overall quite able to perform as a  
generic Unix system (ala Sun).  The dialogs work real well with DBkit  
(Ingres, Sybase, Oracle), with distributed objects (NeXTSTEP  
applications interact across the network - being submitted to still  
emerging Object Management Group), and with Unix stuff (e.g., pipes).

Answer 2: Novell has done excellent work connecting machines  
together, providing interfaces so programs can work together, and  
seems directly committed to interoperability without excepting any  
vendor or system.

Answer 3: We still have a long way to go to overcome the Microsoft,  
Apple, Sun, IBM, DEC, et.al. fights for who sets the interoperability  
standards. There is no reason why a Sun or PC out of the box should  
not have the same interoperability that a NeXT has, or why a NeXT 


Mark R. Thomsen
TRW Space and Defense
Redondo Beach, CA
Senior Engineer

From: "Mike Cormier [Los Angeles SE]" <suntzu.west.sun.com!mikec@uunet.UUCP>

Hi Mitch,

   I saw this post and am most curious to see the results.  I'd
like to give one small piece of advice.  You should post this to
comp.sys.sun.hardware (or comp.sys.sun.{admin,misc}).  I don't think
alt.sys.sun gets much readership (or "airplay") since the comp.sys.sun
heirarchy was created.  You might get a much more complete response from
Sun/SPARC users.

Good luck with your survey! (Wish us luck :-)



 
From: "Nicholas W. Christopher" <ronin!nwc@bmt.gun.com>

I work with the NeXT, a machine that best represents at least one  
facet of Open Systems - interoperability.

Pull the NeXT out of its shipping box, power it on, and you can plug  
right into Ethernet/NFS, Novell or AppleTalk networks! The floppy  
drive handles UNIX, MS DOS or Macintosh formatted disks. The CDROM  
reads ISO-9660, Rockridge, Macintosh or High Sierra format discs. The  
UNIX is 4.3BSD based. C and C++ are included. PostScript Level 2.  
Pantone Color. POSIX compliance on the way. X11, available from  
several third party vendors.

The NeXT gets branded as proprietary. But I've made a living from  
several flavors of workstation over the years and I find that the  
flexibility of the NeXT make integration into a heterogeneous  
environment more painless than on any other platform. 


---
\n


			Ronin Consulting, Inc.
Nicholas W. Christopher			 	nwc@gun.com
   with BSMTP id 3834; Sun, 06 Sep 92 15:46:02 PST

From: Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil>


Mitch
I would like to respond to your question  but I need to understand, more exactly, what  the question is.
Please define "open systems"  in a way that  supports the formulation of an objective response.
Thanks

Richard Pitre
Research Physicist 

Naval Resarch Laboratory
Washington, D. C.

From: Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil>

Mitch

I would still like to know. If there is some specification for open systems it would be very useful to me and a lot of  
people that I know.

- Richard

From: "Robert J. Du Wors" <csi.uottawa.ca!duwors@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa


RCA Systems, they have no known compatibilities problems, of course there 
is always SDS...

Sorry, for the flippant response, but religious questions deserve a measure
of humor.  I'll quit now, having probably given away more about my age
then I intended.

Good luck in your quest.

Rob D.


                      -----------------------
duwors@csi.uottawa.ca  aka  Robert Du Wors    Tel:613.831.1930 Fax:613.831.0272
Connected Systems Group,    141 Country Lane, Kanata, Ontario, Canada   K2L 1J6

From: "Robert J. Du Wors" <csi.uottawa.ca!duwors@uunet.UUCP>



SDS-Scientific Data Systems: numero uno in real time circa 1968, bought out
first by Xerox, then passed on to Honeywell, itself finally consumed by
Bull.  I don't make up this stuff, history is wierder than imagination.

And I swear that RCA really did have a systems division that made almost IBM
360 clones- also bought out by Honeywell (who also bought out GE, before
dumping everything on Bull).  RCA ads featured the computer-as-octopus and 
promised that every salesman was a genuine system programmer!

I am a consultant.  (Why else would I be cruising the net on a weekend when
normal people go on vacation?).  I go by many names, and others have been
known to add a few (not always repeatable): National Capital Region
Coordinator, President (a small white lie, legally that's my wife), Network
Specialist, Software Engineer, etc., etc.

I would be pleased to send you my CV (read: given the slightless, even tiniest
glimmer of interest, and you can have it by e-mail, fax, and/or hardcopy
(which is sort my personal version of multi-media).

Actually, I do read your mag (the price is right, and it has some good stuff).
You guys scared me when you changed your name.  I make myself unpopular in
some circles when I suggest that it time to hedge bets on UNIX (I have been
know to sigh the former UNIX World as case in point).

I have the Windows NT SDK but await payment by sluggish government clients
before I can afford the hardware upgrade to run it.  I intend to have
Windows-DOS, Windows-NT, and UNIX partitions.

In fact, I always wanted to be a minor journalist.  So, if you need a stringer
or part time contributor, let me know.

This is definitely a long reply for a long weekend and go now!

Regard,

Rob D.

P.S. Right on about price point is everything in this transitional period.
     If anything, you were too soft on SunSoft!

                      -----------------------
duwors@csi.uottawa.ca  aka  Robert Du Wors    Tel:613.831.1930 Fax:613.831.0272
                            141 Country Lane, Kanata, Ontario, Canada   K2L 1J6


From: Ron Peterson <cs.wisc.edu!ronp%jomby.cs.wisc.edu@uunet.UUCP>

I am the sole MIS employee in a 20 person department engaged in a variety
of prepress activities(typesetting and graphics).

We have a PDP-11 which we are phasing out, a Microvax and a VAXstation,
6 Macintosh computers, 8 386sx clones, a PS-2 model 50 and a couple of
IBM PC's. We are in the process of acquiring 2 Macintosh Quadras.

For home use, I started out with a 6800/6809 machine, and in 1986 upgraded
to an Atari ST. In 1991, I started using a NeXT at home.



From: Ron Peterson <cs.wisc.edu!ronp%jomby.cs.wisc.edu@uunet.UUCP>
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

I consider Wang to be the least open of the hardware companies because of
their refusal to migrate to Unix(and they would not even use MS-DOS on
their PC's).

Silicon Graphics is the most open Hardware company.

Microsoft is the least open software company because they only supply 
software for PC's and Macintosh computers.

Frame is the most open software company because it supplies its software
on a variety of platforms.

I work for the State of Wisconsin and can be reached at 608-266-5597.


From: Scott Schwartz <groucho.cs.psu.edu!schwartz@uunet.UUCP>

You ask:

"Open systems" means "non-proprietary" and "highly interoperable."  In
that case, there are two clear leaders: BSD and GNU.  

-- Scott Schwartz, graduate student, +1 814 865-4551
             <9209052321.aa04468@utoday.utoday.com> 


From: Scott Schwartz <groucho.cs.psu.edu!schwartz@uunet.UUCP>


| Thanks. Where do you go to school?

Penn State University.

From: "William C. \"Spike\" White" <swhite%tybse1.UUCP@afseo.eglin.af.mil>


--START OF OPINION--
I question any vendor's commitment to Open Systems who has a large installed
base.  It's usually more expedient for them to extol the superiority of their 
proprietary products and attempt to woo customers that way than it is to 
re-tool and support the industry standard. Another common ploy is to call 
their proprietary systems "Open". Proprietary OS's and GUI's are two examples.

My runner-up choice, Sun, is an excellent example.  They used to be the 
hands-down leader of Open Systems, by virtue of being a young aggressive company
with a small installed base.  They brought us such features as NFS, RPC's and 
yp.  I applaud them supporting RFS, enough though most SysAdmins seem to run 
NFS.  I applaud their support of industry-standard SVR4 and ongoing support of 
new emerging standards. An exciting example is their new SunLink product.

But now they are often forcing their products on their users, at the expense of 
the industry equivalent.  Two examples are their support of Open Look and NIS+, 
at the expense of Motif and DNS.  I have no problem with Open Look, NeWS, 
SunView or OpenWindows.  However, Motif is a de-facto standard used by 
everyone except Sun and AT&T.  If I choose to develop using Motif to increase
portability, Sun should support this decision.  Similiarly, when I'm running a 
Sun on the Internet, Sun should allow me to easily run DNS without forcing me 
to use NIS+.  I shouldn't have to hack shared C libraries.   

The operating-vendor that I think best supports Open Systems right now is 
(believe it or not) Novell!  Possibly because they're an aggressive company
trying to seriously penetrate the Open Systems market.  They're in a good 
position, because Netware, just like SNA, has an enormous installed base and 
so must be considered a de-facto (albeit proprietary) standard.  But they're 
not resting. 

As with any vendor, they do have their own agenda, but they have introduced
a SNA gateway, Netware/NFS, Flex/IP, IP tunneling  and have a declared intent 
of allowing Netware to run over TCP/IP, should you want to.  They currently 
have a TCP/IP product that allows PCs to run Netware and TCP/IP concurrently.  
They are have made it possible for UNIX vendors to introduce Netware for UNIX. 
Netware for OS/2 is available. They are cooperating with router manufacturers 
to run Netware on routers and are working with HP and Sequent to develop 
native versions of Netware for these platforms.

They seem to respond to criticisms.  For instance, USENET posters, among
other, demonstrated a weakness in their WAN routing algorithms and Novell has 
improved them. 

All of this translates to better products, more interoperability and more 
choices to assist in "right-sizing".

Spike White
Senior Software Engineer  
Tybrin Corporation

--END OF OPINION--
P.S. Thanks for a great trade rag!  I'm a regular subscriber and read it cover
     to cover every issue.  At first, I never thought Open Systems Today!
     would surpass Unix Today!, but it has.


From: highland.com!mike@uunet.UUCP

Which computer and/or operating-vendor has the greatest 

commitment to open systems? Which has the least? Why?

Open Systems now means "It's made by us."
Therefore all vendors equal commitment.

However, Sun has the largest marketshare, therefore
they must have the largest commitment.

-Mike


From: utstat.toronto.edu!tg@uunet.UUCP
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics

The term "open system" means more than just provinding an interface
to a de-facto specification, be it hardware or software. It means providing
information on it's implementation as well. (At a fair price, of course)

Without a doubt BSDI is the most open software vendor in the market.
They will sell you their UNIX product as well as its source for a modest price.

Hardware vendors almost never provide complete specs or operations for 
their hardware. And when they do, the manuals are often incomplete
or incomprehensible. Gone are the days of true "open" hardware.

Hardware vendors would do well to follow the example DEC set in the 70's with
it's PDP-11 and VAX hardware books and schematics.
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness.	| tg@utstat.toronto.edu