O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T?

[Chuck Price]

In article <11006 at steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen at crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:

>  An ABI is not for a vendor, it's for a CPU type. There will be one for
>SPARC, 386, 68020, and hopefully for VAXen. These are all markets in
>which there are either multiple hardware or software vendors. ABI
>describes how things call the O/S, and you don't need to "get one," you
>just buy the standard and write to it.

This is yet another example of the blind speculation that seems to
be rampant throughout this topic. Getting an ABI is not as simple
as you state. DEC cannot get an ABI for the VAX. AT&T wouldn't allow
it.  Do we need any more reason to rebel and form OSF? How tight
does AT&T have to hold the leash before you realize they are in
control of you future? Did you like it when they wouldn't let you
plug your own phone into your own telephone outlet?  Their new
license is *that* binding on the other vendors, and *worse*.

>
>| 3) Vendor neutrality
>| 
>| 	Many people have commented on the fact that OSF will be dominated
>| 	by IBM and DEC.  This shows a clear lack of understanding of
>| 	how OSF will be structured.  OSF is an independent foundation,
>| 	with its own board, president and technical director.  In many ways,
>
>  I'm sorry, if you believe that any foundation is "independent" of the
>people who pay the bills, I disagree with you. If they want to be truly
>independent, the board should be TOTALLY made up of users and software
>vendors who don't sell hardware (or at least CPU's, I'd hate to count
>the Microsoft Mouse and stuff like peripherals).

Again, positions based upon pure speculation. If you *read* the
press release, or  an accurate description of the organization, you
would see that all the sponsors pay an *equal* amount into the OSF,
to eliminate the possibility of one vendor being "more equal" than
another. There *is no* Security Council. 

Now, if you just plain don't believe the statements made by the
OSF members, what makes you any more confident in the ulterior
motives of AT&T?  And why should software vendors or users
be any more independent than hardware vendors? I can't imagine that
Claris, for example, would be any more independent than HP.
And I doubt that Microsoft has DEC's best interest at heart.

The hardware vendors' business depends upon shipping operating systems
to run on their platforms.
If these vendors commit to ship an OSF based system, they are pretty
stongly motivated to make the OSF produce that system. Remember, their
customers are holding them to the statements that were made at
the OSF announcement.

>
>| 5) Licensing
>| 
>| 	Anyone who has seen the changes in the licensing agreements for
>| 	System V from SVR1 through SVR3 must understand one of the
>| 	greatest motiviations for creating the OSF.  AT&T has arbitrarily
>| 	changed the definition of Unix, how it can be distributed, to
>| 	whom it can be distributed, what it costs, etc., etc.  Major
>| 	portions of the system have been unbundled or dropped altogether
>| 	(e.g., DWB, man pages--did you know that the SVR3 license does
>| 	not allow you to ship man pages?)  What will they change next?
>
>  And here I thought that the reason was so that I didn't pay for
>something I don't need... BellTech is shipping a UNIX runtime, C
>compiler, and manuals (unlimited license) for about $400. If they make
>money at that rate the license fees can't be too onerous.

Read the operative words here: SVR3 license *DOES NOT ALLOW* you to
ship man pages.  AT&T controls the content of you distribution. Anything
you add becomes the property of AT&T, and/or AT&T can arbitrarily
refuse to renew your license.

None of the vendors involved in OSF have voiced *any* objection
to paying license fees. It is the nature and binding rules of the
license that the OSF members object to. 

> ... as long as
>the user's have no say, we're at the mercy of whoever, anyway.

Users can participate by paying the membership fee. If you are too
poor to pay, or are a cheapskate :-> like me, you can make your feelings
known through the standards organizations, like the POSIX committee.
Remember, OSF abides by the POSIX standard, a public, OPEN standard.

>  Isn't having AT&T get Sun and Microsoft together to make a common
>product for all of them an indication that they're trying to integrate
>the major flavors? Sure, it's driven by the market, but it's happening,
>and the software vendors (and developers) and users will be better off
>for it. A common user interface which runs initially on both X and NeWS?
>Can you give up all the proprietary unterfaces? I sure can.

The OSF members have no argument with trying to integrate the major
flavors of Unix. But the needs of the players in the industry *must*
be taken into account. AT&T/Sun's plan did not take the needs of
the rest of us into account at all. They explicitly ruled out
our participation. The software vendors and developers will *not* be
better off, because the major computer vendors will be *forced* to
abandon Unix in favor of a business in which we can fairly compete.
So it would be much worse without OSF. Our only other option is
to go our independent ways. We *could not* accept AT&T's "deal".

Question: If AT&T is so committed to open systems, why doesn't
it join OSF?  Remember that they are a big company too, and are
not likely to be dominated by IBM, even if the OSF rules allowed
it (which they *don't*).

They were invited to be a sponsor, and their refusal is clear
indication that they have no intention of opening Unix.

Question: If the OSF is so bad, why did a Sun VP
say that he thought it was a pretty good idea, and hinted that Sun might
be interested in joining (from quote in this week's CSN).

My opinion: Before taking positions which you cannot substantiate,
why not do a little homework on the motivations and mechanisms behind
the AT&T position and the OSF group? In fact, I would love to see
someone independent of the vendors perform a study of the AT&T
license, and compare it to the mechanisms which make up the OSF,
and report their findings to this conference. It would make
much more interesting reading than the baseless flames recorded
thus far.

-chuck
* I speak only for myself. DEC and my boss typically don't agree with me. *
*                But I know they are usually wrong.                       *