From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross)
Subject: [TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:36:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEoi9W7jvLBr_HCT-FgYjp3QF6oXF8OXw5pPT1MgygqR5oxw4w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2OrszmfbQmvN7agpPS7DWV6Lo2XnheoP8qv_2Yvqmff=g@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> [...]
> In the end, definition does not change the status of what Unix was. It
> was the definition of Open Systems -- it was published and I do stand
> behind that. And in the end, it could not be claimed as trade secret
> because it was ->> by definition<<- open and known. But traditional Unix
> from AT&T was never >>free<< and that fact is not going to change either.
> It may some how in the future, but that past is true and as a result, Linus
> and other did an end-around and created and awesome >>free<< solution.
>
[...]
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; in particular especially after
the standards bodies got together and starting writing down how things were
supposed to work. This led to vendor independence (to some extent, anyway)
and was a distinction from closed systems which were defined by a single
vendor who controlled everything about them (though presumably modulated by
customer demand), including the OS (since this was usually written in-house
for each platform. This even makes historical sense: Unix was written by a
third party who didn't design the hardware).
Consider DEC: In 1981, they had at least three hardware platforms intended
for the timesharing market, each running multiple operating systems: PDP-11
running RSX-11*, RT-11, RSTS/E and Ultrix-11 (Unix); PDP-10 running TOPS-10
and TOPS-20; VAX running VMS and Ultrix-32 (Unix). And this isn't to
mention any of the other stuff they were selling/supporting (PDP-8's, etc).
Of those software systems it's easy to see what Ultrix-11 and Ultrix-32
have in common; one has a reasonable shot at getting software written for
one running on the other. Contrast with RT-11 and VMS, or even RT-11 and
RSX. Similarly with IBM, CDC, HP, GE, etc.
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. "Open" in a sense closer to what
we now call "open source" (meaning the source was available for inspection)
came much later.
- Dan C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170315/e92167db/attachment.html>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-16 3:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-14 14:43 Clem Cole
2017-03-14 15:38 ` Larry McVoy
2017-03-14 15:51 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-14 15:56 ` Larry McVoy
2017-03-14 15:57 ` Michael Kjörling
2017-03-14 16:20 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-14 18:06 ` Jason Stevens
2017-03-14 18:31 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-14 18:59 ` Jason Stevens
2017-03-14 18:20 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-14 19:48 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-15 14:32 ` Michael Kjörling
2017-03-15 15:36 ` Arthur Krewat
[not found] ` <58c9623b.law1Aw2ufj3DFNA1%schily@schily.net>
2017-03-15 15:54 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-15 15:59 ` Larry McVoy
2017-03-15 17:43 ` Warner Losh
2017-03-15 19:02 ` Larry McVoy
2017-03-15 19:14 ` Warner Losh
2017-03-14 18:41 ` Warner Losh
2017-03-17 18:16 ` [TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux Tony Finch
2017-03-17 18:52 ` Jeremy C. Reed
2017-03-19 7:18 ` arnold
2017-03-19 9:05 ` Wesley Parish
2017-03-19 18:37 ` Warner Losh
2017-03-17 19:54 ` Ron Natalie
2017-03-14 18:18 ` [TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX") Clem Cole
2017-03-14 16:20 ` tfb
2017-03-14 22:45 ` Josh Good
2017-03-15 1:11 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-15 7:55 ` arnold
2017-03-15 19:28 ` Josh Good
2017-03-15 19:35 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-15 20:26 ` Ron Natalie
2017-03-15 23:22 ` 'Josh Good'
2017-03-15 19:45 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-15 20:27 ` Larry McVoy
2017-03-15 20:48 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-15 23:46 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-16 0:45 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-16 1:27 ` Steve Nickolas
2017-03-16 3:09 ` Ron Natalie
2017-03-16 3:18 ` Charles Anthony
2017-03-16 3:36 ` Dan Cross [this message]
2017-03-16 4:08 ` arnold
2017-03-16 12:51 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-16 13:18 ` William Pechter
2017-03-17 21:20 ` Josh Good
2017-03-16 15:42 ` Chet Ramey
2017-03-16 17:29 ` William Pechter
2017-03-15 23:55 ` Josh Good
2017-03-16 0:05 ` William Pechter
2017-03-15 20:08 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-16 0:46 ` Wesley Parish
2017-03-16 0:52 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-16 19:47 ` Dave Horsfall
2017-03-17 2:16 ` Jason Stevens
2017-03-17 15:55 ` Warner Losh
2017-03-17 21:11 ` Dave Horsfall
2017-03-14 19:01 Noel Chiappa
2017-03-14 20:05 Clem Cole
2017-03-14 20:16 ` Arthur Krewat
2017-03-14 20:54 ` Dan Cross
2017-03-14 21:19 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-16 15:40 Norman Wilson
2017-03-16 17:26 ` William Pechter
2017-03-16 18:45 ` Clem Cole
2017-03-16 22:17 ` Dave Horsfall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAEoi9W7jvLBr_HCT-FgYjp3QF6oXF8OXw5pPT1MgygqR5oxw4w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=crossd@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).