From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnold@skeeve.com (arnold@skeeve.com) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:08:24 -0600 Subject: [TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX") In-Reply-To: References: <20170314224547.GB14659@naleco.com> <20170315192815.GA15120@naleco.com> <20170315202723.GG2995@mcvoy.com> <14410fd3-2769-bcc7-740f-3bf54675b03e@kilonet.net> Message-ID: <201703160408.v2G48OOn025801@freefriends.org> Dan Cross wrote: > Hmm, this is quite interesting, but I had different impression of the > definition of "open" at the time: it seemed like what people were saying > when they said that Unix was "open" was much less about the source code, > but rather about the interfaces and APIs; Yes!!!! Portability of application code was a big issue, and the option to avoid vendor lock-iin. > In other words, the "openness" in "open systems" wasn't about code *for the > system itself*; it was about freedom from software lock-in to a particular > hardware vendor. Or, perhaps, openness to multiple system vendors > supporting the same customer-written code. You've hit the nail very much on the head. This did come as a result of the "openness" that Clem is describing: since people knew how "UNIX" (as a concept) worked, it was possible to transfer both your source code, and your peoples' how-to-use-it knowledge from one vendor to another. This caused vendors to start competing more on price / performance. Arnold