From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: crossd@gmail.com (Dan Cross) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:36:34 -0400 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: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Clem Cole 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: