From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24716 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2021 22:56:40 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Apr 2021 22:56:40 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 030EB9CA79; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:56:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA88B9CA5B; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:55:44 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="JGT7KHyd"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6E2F79CA5B; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:55:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f169.google.com (mail-qt1-f169.google.com [209.85.160.169]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2D029C883 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:55:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f169.google.com with SMTP id x9so7362183qto.8 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:55:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Mm4jjq8vscAcAd3+DYYgwjeITubjuohtlBTjnoIJfoc=; b=JGT7KHydV5nAHB+henntJ5ec900QuItkBcHScWPE4AJEA6cCOiBLOLWKJGzpIhhA8/ 4zZ+Pr1UJc8B0g2AYIzt8Ai6SxRzEwfKPxUl3dmGjHYqVCuVPrUeei6tUB1Pw9zxtfm0 nzM71Xh7qznb2c8BpL3GRbFBL0OssaySx6YRU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Mm4jjq8vscAcAd3+DYYgwjeITubjuohtlBTjnoIJfoc=; b=oqqfDr5FvhVPS0pHdlNux82gIfhIy1I0IUTu0jsRFa/Y7TTwEB0cfFEPvCXggdPtvO pLIjMQq9g+251+i4VyU57q/Jf12Bp0gZIz4V5CibbOiye6dYHcB98hD/yoBMkAhRbKzD TU7pdQ1m1sztXZZsy/16DV18hutP2kjAOyIk4Xpu9ualF4UF4nxbk4HAQYFh8kVhvu0i 3OXTsPpDB3MK9t5HOaVM1E8Xk3kmH6WFW2mkcpF0U7Sv50qNcNyGFYGvYh0cqAx40nwu 09A8Ga4QFWtC75GWjNtbvgGIWGLTSmpOe6er4O0wXfbPX8QO6a8gvvKaRJbn3Qwkg6wI xBTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532RVLnzC8OinSFH8+qKmkRWBZtK6yc06uX3qzKkix4rwmJCKVnY CPIlAMwkG7mW20BmymWTdTLOkwyjE1WFzhj9RIWkOltlYscmNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXhTCxTqfSmhN3jmpxTnwOqFtTKtBNpCnpszY7NyHmhReqLXjsV6xoPsm1kuwCIYLidsqAbROYte4cftv5A/I= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6b01:: with SMTP id w1mr13213198qts.253.1617576939693; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:55:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <584DED5A-1226-4AF7-A191-C34CAFA53686@pobox.com> <20210404022356.GR28660@mcvoy.com> <20210404085520.GA6494@naleco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 18:55:28 -0400 Message-ID: To: David Arnold Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e33d0705bf2d7ace" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Josh Good Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000e33d0705bf2d7ace Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 Your right in both cases.The only thing I will point out about the mobile systems have a unix core - it is extremely hidden and made to be in accessible which to me is exactly what unix was originally working against. Instead of =E2=80=9Caccess methods=E2=80=9D of the 60s we have frameworks. = We lost simplicity, clarity, and direct access for dancing colors on the LCD and a GUI. Yes they sell a lot of devices but I=E2=80=99m not sure we are better= off. On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 6:26 PM David Arnold wrote: > On 5 Apr 2021, at 02:15, Clem Cole wrote: > > > <=E2=80=A6> > > IBM lost the Research/Universities to DEC which started out being very > open and easy to work with and extremely cost-effective. As more $s pil= ed > in the market, DEC started to be more and more protective (and moved more > and more upscale). To many at the time, DEC compared to IBM (Mainframe > S/360 vs. PDP-6/9/10) again -- worse technology, but 'good enough' (and a > new growing customer base). The Unix Workstations come out - again 68K v= s. > Vax (story repeats). Sun eventually taking the lead from DEC. As Lar= ry > points out, Sun certainly started being extremely friendly to the same > group -- again cost-effective and leading tech. Sun went upscale and the > Intel/Microsoft alliance was good enough to a lot of people. > > > To your earlier point, Unix lost the developers to DOS, and later Windows= , > because they were more =E2=80=9Cdeveloper friendly=E2=80=9D. > > I think the dominant factor was simple: cost. You could get a DOS PC wit= h > BASIC, and later eg. Turbo Pascal, for a fraction of what a Unix system > cost. And while the OS barely warranted the name, it was accessible in a > way that Unix wasn=E2=80=99t. Over a quite short time, the third-party > documentation, language support, editors, tools, etc, quickly outpaced Un= ix > systems, and Windows provided a smooth (and still vastly cheaper) upgrade > path. > > Unix (in the form of Linux) only recruited a significant audience again > when its developer cost (nothing, hard to beat) and ease of remote > operation outpaced Windows in the late Internet/early Cloud era. > > <=E2=80=A6> > > For us UNIX historians, we need to be careful and learn from our own > history here -- the Cell Phone/Mobile target is the engine for the next > Christenian style disruption. It is by far the #1 target for people > writing new programs (which I find a little sad personally - but I > understand and accept -- time has marched on). In the end, a small mobil= e > target will be the tech on top, and available will be driven by market > behavior and those suppliers will be "who has the gold.=E2=80=9D > > > I feel I should point out that both the dominant mobile operating systems > are Unix-hased. The UI is necessarily new, but astonishingly the 50 year > old basic abstractions are the same. > > > > > d > > -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual --000000000000e33d0705bf2d7ace Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1 Your right in both cases.The only thing I will point o= ut about the mobile systems have a unix core - it is extremely hidden and m= ade to be in accessible which to me is exactly what unix was originally wor= king against.=C2=A0

Inst= ead of =E2=80=9Caccess methods=E2=80=9D of the 60s we have frameworks.=C2= =A0 We lost simplicity, clarity, and direct access for dancing colors on th= e LCD and a GUI.=C2=A0 Yes they sell a lot of devices but I=E2=80=99m not s= ure we are better off. =C2=A0

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 6:26 PM David Arno= ld <davida@pobox.com> wrote:<= br>
On 5 Apr = 2021, at 02:15, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

<=E2= =80=A6>

IB= M lost the Research/Universities to DEC which started=C2=A0out being very o= pen and easy to work with and extremely cost-effective.=C2=A0 =C2=A0As more= $s piled in the market, DEC started to be more and more protective (and mo= ved more and more upscale).=C2=A0 =C2=A0To many at the time, DEC compared t= o IBM (Mainframe S/360 vs. PDP-6/9/10) again -- worse technology, but '= good enough' (and a new growing customer base).=C2=A0 The Unix Workstat= ions come out - again 68K vs. Vax (story repeats).=C2=A0 =C2=A0Sun eventual= ly taking the lead=C2=A0from DEC.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 As Larry points out, Sun cer= tainly started being extremely friendly to the same group -- again cost-eff= ective and leading tech.=C2=A0 Sun went upscale and the Intel/Microsoft all= iance was good enough to a lot of people.

To your earlier point, Unix lost the d= evelopers to DOS, and later Windows, because they were more =E2=80=9Cdevelo= per friendly=E2=80=9D.

I think the dominant factor= was simple: cost.=C2=A0 You could get a DOS PC with BASIC, and later eg. T= urbo Pascal, for a fraction of what a Unix system cost.=C2=A0 And while the= OS barely warranted the name, it was accessible in a way that Unix wasn=E2= =80=99t.=C2=A0 Over a quite short time, the third-party documentation, lang= uage support, editors, tools, etc, quickly outpaced Unix systems, and Windo= ws provided a smooth (and still vastly cheaper) upgrade path.
Unix (in the form of Linux) only recruited a significant audien= ce again when its developer cost (nothing, hard to beat) and ease of remote= operation outpaced Windows in the late Internet/early Cloud era.

<=E2=80=A6>

=C2=A0For us UNIX historians, we need to be careful and= learn from our own history here -- the Cell Phone/Mobile target is the eng= ine for the next Christenian style disruption.=C2=A0 It is by=C2=A0far the = #1 target for people writing new programs (which I find a little sad person= ally - but I understand and accept -- time has marched on).=C2=A0 In the en= d, a small mobile target will be the tech on top, and available will be dri= ven by market behavior and those suppliers will be "who has the gold.<= /span>= =E2=80=9D

I feel I should point out that both the dominan= t mobile operating systems are Unix-hased.=C2=A0 The UI is necessarily new,= but astonishingly the 50 year old basic abstractions are the same.
<= br>



d

--
Sent from a handheld expect more typos = than usual
--000000000000e33d0705bf2d7ace--