Unix is proprietary in the sense that hardware manufactures of computer
systems have to build kernels and drivers that operate on there
processors and peripherals. Even companies like SCO that write code to
more generic hardware have the right to copyright their work and sell it
if they wish. BUT this has little to do with the classic definition of
"open systems." (see
http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/public/news/feb96/whitepap.htm#RTFToC3 )
Microsoft is a member of OSF which means they are committed to providing
interoperability between systems at a software level. For example - MS'
C compiler supports a standard set of function as does Sun's and HP's.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Wilkerson [SMTP:bryanw @
reston .
ans .
net]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 1997 9:02 AM
> To: 'osiris @
gnss .
com'; Pio Gaeta
> Cc: fernando @
boemia .
pix .
com .
br; firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
> Subject: RE: Microsoft vs The world
>
> >"...open systems means choice. Software systems that run on many
> different
> >kinds of machines give the user a wide choice of hardware platforms
> and
> >the choice of hardwarebecomes much less important than with older
> >technologies..." Brian Maskell Associates Inc.
>
> Pardon me for interjecting here. But aren't most versions of Unix
> proprietary? Xenix, Ultrix, AIX (among others) all only run on 1
> manufacturer's
> computers and that happens to be the same manufacturer that makes the
> O/S.
> And exactly how usable is an "open system" if it requires the owner
> to write his/her
> own hardware drivers or tweak the source to make it run in my "only
> slightly
> different version" of an "open" OS? This is part of the reason why
> NT and
> Novell chip away at Unix market share on a daily basis. BTW: couldn't
> you
> find someone better to quote than a manufacturing process consultant.
>
> <snip>
>
Follow-Ups:
|
|
