OSF, and why it is a side issue

[Alexander Dupuy]

In article <1988May29.014006.4964 at utzoo.uucp>, Henry Spencer writes:
> In abstract, I think OSF is a fine idea.  AT&T and Sun badly need some
> competition: they have been thinking and acting like a monopoly, with a
> divine right to dictate standards to the rest of the world.

This brings up something I thought of when I first read about the OSF
announcement: what we are seeing here is a classic example of the dialectic
(as in the Marxist concept of "dialectical materialism").

Just as the first major divergence of Unix (BSD vs. USG) is finally nearing
it's resolution in the SunOS/SysV merge, we are about to see a new divergence,
between the merged "Enhanced System V" and what ever the OSF plans to call
their Un*x variant.  At some point in the future (perhaps in 10-15 years or so)
these two will be resolved into a merged Unix, and a new variant will diverge,
and start a new cycle.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.  In fact, by having two mainstream
variants of Unix, different approaches can be tried, and can compete against
each other, and the best features of each will be merged into the next stage.
At his talk at SUG last December, Bill Joy even said something to the effect
that the point of merging BSD and System V was so that the basics could be
standardized, and innovators could go ahead and work on the new problems, like
integrating AI or expert systems or object oriented systems into Unix.

And having two main variants is ever so much better than having 3, or 4, or N,
different versions.  Things like HP-UX, and dual universe ports like Pyramid's
or Masscomp's Un*xes make porting a real hassle, because systems have some
features but not others, or worse, have all the features, but you can only use
one or another subset at one time.

It would be far more interesting than speculating on the motives of the various
players in this drama, if people would discuss what they think the basic
dialectic conflict between the ESV and OSF camps will be.  Some have
characterized the conflict between BSD and USG as one of featured, but baroque
complexity (and gratuitous changes) versus stripped down redesign.  While this
isn't completely true (AT&T has made their share of gratuitous changes, and
some parts of System V are almost as baroque as BSD) it is a useful
generalization.

> OSF could reverse this.  ... pick a small team of very good people,
> and set up defences to keep the marketdroids and the mismanagers off their
> backs.  Give them the resources, and the time, needed to do the job right,
> rather than having to accept existing botches in the interests of expediency.
> ...
> Unix has accumulated a lot of warts over the last decade; there is plenty
> of room for simplification and unification without introducing massive
> compatibility problems.

Perhaps, as Henry Spencer posits, the spare and lean vs. complex and featured
conflict will be the new dialectic, as well as the old.  As he notes later,
probably not.  I'm not familiar enough with AIX or Apollo's NCS to guess where
OSF might go with their Unix.  But it should be interesting to watch.  And
eventually, ESV and OSF will be merged (perhaps in a IEEE standard?  :-).  Then
will come the _real_ dialectic: IEEE-ESV/OSF vs. GNU.  That's a battle I won't
want to miss.

@alex
-- 
inet: dupuy at columbia.edu
uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!dupuy