Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!
access3!neal
From: n...@access3.digex.net (neal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Date: 23 Mar 1994 15:22:49 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <2mpms9$dat@news1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
What source was sold to sun Was it SysVr4 or SysVr42.
What impact does this have on Unixware products?
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!csn!
magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!
news.provo.novell.com!tahiti!darrend
From: darr...@tahitiUSG.Sandy.Novell.COM (Darren R. Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Date: 24 Mar 1994 18:04:53 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc.
Lines: 14
Sender: darrend@tahiti (Darren R. Davis)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2msko5$qnv@bantu.provo.novell.com>
References: <2mpms9$dat@news1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tahiti.usg.sandy.novell.com
In article <2mpms9$...@news1.digex.net>, n...@access3.digex.net (neal) writes:
|> What source was sold to sun Was it SysVr4 or SysVr42.
|> What impact does this have on Unixware products?
|>
It was Unix System VR4, (The older stuff). No impact on UnixWare (IMHO).
:^)
Darren R. Davis
UnixWare Developer Support
Novell
Any opinions expressed are my own, and may not represent those of Novell's.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvax1.cse.psu.edu!
schwartz
From: schwa...@roke.cse.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
In-Reply-To: uunet!molly!vlcek's message of Sun, 27 Mar 1994 04:43:15 GMT
Message-ID: <SCHWARTZ.94Mar27135208@roke.cse.psu.edu>
Sender: n...@cse.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: roke.cse.psu.edu
References: <1994Mar25.084936.18675@dde.dk> <CnB3s3.B7@molly.uucp>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 18:52:07 GMT
Lines: 5
uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
What UNIX needs is a sponsor independent of a hardware manufacturer.
BSDI.
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
newsserver.jvnc.net!newsserver.usl.com!netnews.usl.com!sfgfd!gfd
From: g...@summit.novell.com (George F Demarest)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Followup-To: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.misc
Date: 28 Mar 1994 02:07:41 GMT
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories. Summit, NJ.
Lines: 82
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <2n5e5d$6ih@bird.summit.novell.com>
References: <Cn68uq.5Jo@irony.com> <CnA696.Mp9@molly.uucp>
Reply-To: g...@summit.novell.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sfgfd.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Jim Vlcek (uunet!molly!vlcek) wrote:
: This agreement is somewhat of a disappointment to me. I had hoped that
:Novell would take the newly-acquired SVR4 base and try to establish it as THE
: Unix - eventually convincing even Sun, HP, IBM and DEC to use it as their
: operating system base, much as they all (sooner or later) will use NT as an
: operating system base on some of their hardware.
It seems that the other Unix providers didn't like the sound of that.
: THAT notion of a unified UNIX, however, seems but a forlorn hope today.
: Novell has made it clear that it has no interest in UNIX other than as a
: batman for NetWare, Sun has bought out its own source code, HP is soon to
: follow, IBM may as well, DEC is left with the hot potato of OSF/1, SCO still
: leads the Intel UNIX market, and SGI's mindshare capture in the graphics
: market ensures Irix's continued existence.
I guess Spec 1170, the transfer of Unix licensing to X/open and othger elements
of COSE are about as good as it's going to get. Not that that is a prticularly
bad thing, but it wont produce for the world Unix "Chicago" "Cairo" or "Jersey
City", for that matter.
: Indeed, possibly the most likely next casualty of the (still ongoing) UNIX
: wars is UnixWare. Despite sharing the one characteristic that will make NT a
: certain success (being the product of a large, mass-market-oriented,
: _software-only_ company), UnixWare is clearly a bastard stepchild around
: Novell. Lower-than-expected initial sales figures, coupled with a lukewarm
: reception among its intended audience (NetWare installations, 65% of whom
: have no plans to include UnixWare in their computational needs according to a
: recent ComputerWorld study) and the diversion of resources toward fixing
: NetWare 4 and consolidating Novell's latest acquisitions do not bode well for
: UnixWare's chances at establishing market share.
That's a little funny, Jim. The idea of moving development resources from UW
to NetWare 4 does not accurately portray the way things work at Novell. Whereas
we have announced our intention that UW and NW will eventually share the same
microkernel architecture (and thus, if need be, the same box), this convergence
is work in progress. Although USL has been swallowed, the building still stands
and the developers are continuing work on UnixWare (perhaps now they have a few
more red t-shirts). This convergence in itself suggests a long term interest in
Unix in general and UnixWare in particular. We're betting a lot on this bastard
child (hopefully, it will learn manners soon!).
: A recent Unigram.X (summarized in comp.unix.unixware) mentioned that Novell
: is not considering porting UnixWare to the PowerPC until that chip sells in
: the millions. This is yet another disappointment, as I believe - as many do
: - that the PowerPC represents finally an opportunity to be rid of the
: Microsoft/Intel oligarchy. UnixWare on PowerPC/Prep would provide me with a
: means to provide my product on a platform independent of the x86 boxes'
: hopelessly outdated architecture and of the SPARC platform's relatively poor
: performance/dollar ratio. Not to be.
I did see AIX on PPC at uniforum. It looked FAST (although their engineer
didn't let anyone near mouse or keyboard, and I can't attest to what other
kinds of accelerated goodies the box had in it).
: On the other hand, the recent acquisition by Novell of WordPerfect and
: Quattro Pro were a pleasant suprise. Presumably, this will ensure a
: WordPerfect for UnixWare version. One dreams of a Quattro Pro for UnixWare,
: although that seems initially unlikely - and some time in the future even if
: it is undertaken. If Novell can maintain the sales of these two leading
: applications, it will become a nearly $2B company - almost half the size of
: Microsoft.
I must admit, my first reaction was "What the...". But the more I chew it over,
the better I like it. There already is WP for UnixWare, BTW (5.2).
: Jim Vlcek Elements of the information superhighway:
--
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
George Demarest | "...but if we fail, then the whole world,
Systems Engineer (UnixWare) | including the United States, including all
Novell, Inc. (USG, SED) | that we have known and cared for, will sink
g...@summit.novell.com | into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more
(908) 522-6363 | sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by
| the lights of perverted Science..."
|
Disclaimer: my words, my fault. | - Sir Winston Churchill on Microsoft
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!siemens!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Message-ID: <CnDI07.26w@molly.uucp>
Sender: vl...@molly.uucp (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
References: <SCHWARTZ.94Mar27135208@roke.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 11:45:42 GMT
Lines: 33
Scott Schwartz writes
> uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
> What UNIX needs is a sponsor independent of a hardware manufacturer.
>
> BSDI.
(I must confess, I'm beginning to lose patience with the pie-in-the-sky
BSD advocates who seem determined to remain out of touch with everyday
market reality ...)
What a wonderful idea! Let's all build our business plans around an OS with
virtually no commercial application support!
Oh yes! If we're looking for a UNIX independent of a single hardware
manufacturer, why then, let's choose a UNIX independent of EVERY hardware
vendor!
Including add-in and add-on manufacturers, virtually none of whom can be
counted on to write device drivers for our newly-chosen OS!
And let's remember to tell our customers ``By the way, you get source! You
know what that means? When something screws up, _you_ can fix it instead of
having to call us. Isn't that a great idea?!''
[Miscellaneous observations regarding correlations between lack of
understanding of business realities and postings from .edu sites deleted
for sake of netiquette.]
--
Jim Vlcek Elements of the information superhighway:
uunet!molly!vlcek UNIX: the concrete
molly!vl...@uunet.uu.net TCP/IP: the road signs
Beautiful downtown St. Paul Windows: the fast-food joints
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!csn!
col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!MathWorks.Com!
yeshua.marcam.com!charnel!xmission!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Date: 30 Mar 1994 01:24:04 GMT
Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <2nakbk$dj9@u.cc.utah.edu>
References: <SCHWARTZ.94Mar27135208@roke.cse.psu.edu> <CnDI07.26w@molly.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu
Sorry, but this was too good to pass up... 8-) 8-) 8-). Serious comments
follow the "====".
In article <CnDI07....@molly.uucp> uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>Scott Schwartz writes
>> uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>> What UNIX needs is a sponsor independent of a hardware manufacturer.
>>
>> BSDI.
>
>(I must confess, I'm beginning to lose patience with the pie-in-the-sky
> BSD advocates who seem determined to remain out of touch with everyday
> market reality ...)
(I must confess, I'm beginning to lose patience with the pie-in-the-sky
UNIX advocates who seem determined to remain out of touch with everyday
market reality ...)
>What a wonderful idea! Let's all build our business plans around an OS with
>virtually no commercial application support!
What a wonderful idea! Let's all build our business plans around an OS with
virtually no commercial application support!
>Oh yes! If we're looking for a UNIX independent of a single hardware
>manufacturer, why then, let's choose a UNIX independent of EVERY hardware
>vendor!
Oh yes! If we're looking for an OS independent of a single hardware
manufacturer, why then, let's choose an OS independent of EVERY hardware
vendor!
>Including add-in and add-on manufacturers, virtually none of whom can be
>counted on to write device drivers for our newly-chosen OS!
Including add-in and add-on manufacturers, virtually none of whom can be
counted on to write device drivers for our newly-chosen OS!
>And let's remember to tell our customers ``By the way, you get source! You
>know what that means? When something screws up, _you_ can fix it instead of
>having to call us. Isn't that a great idea?!''
And let's remember to tell our customers ``By the way, you don't get source!
You know what that means? When something screws up, _you_ can wait until we
get around to fixing it, even after you call us. Isn't that a great idea?!''
>[Miscellaneous observations regarding correlations between lack of
> understanding of business realities and postings from .edu sites deleted
> for sake of netiquette.]
[Miscellaneous observations regarding correlations between lack of
understanding of business realities and postings from non-internet cinnected
non-.com sites deleted for sake of netiquette.]
====
Seriously Jim, all of your arguments against BSD can be taken as arguments
against UNIX in general:
o You want commercial applications? Get DOS/Windows -- NOT UNIX!
Let me know when WP for UNIX and Windows ships the same version
at about the same thime and I might change my tune.
o You want to be hardware independent? Get NT or Chicago (which IS
being ported to MIPS R4000 and other RISC platforms as of this
writing)... Not to mention that Windows apps will run everywhere
because of WABI.
o You think BSD lacks device drivers? Try running a QIC-40/80
drive (a Colorado Jumbo 250, for instance) under UnixWare; the
BEST UNIX in this department is SCO... and it is *antiquated*.
o Source availability doesn't necessarily mean support inavailability.
Also, support for MS products is nearly the best in the industry,
and MS products (and Novell DOS-based and NetWare products) seldom
need the level of support that UNIX based OS's do.
Many of us posting from .EDU sites are not students. The attribution of
my articale to the UofU is based on the location of the NNTP server. Webers
CS department graciously grants me net connectivity so I don't have to hassle
with my employer about whether or not my postings misrepresent their opinions
even if I say they don't. Since you are UUCP connected, you must have a
similar setup with a connectivity provider.
All in all, UNIX has serious benefits, so I would be the first to argue for
throwing DOS away entirely and then burning the sources so it can never be
perpetrated again on some unsuspecting sap. But you have to admit that
research occurs much faster in the Linux and BSD communities than it does
in the commercial UNIX communities, and sometimes it seems that a fear of
"bleeding edge" keeps commercial companies farther back from the leading
edge than their customers would like. Harry's complaints about the lack
of RAID support in the default distribution is a good example of this.
If your complaint is one based on the fragmentation of the UNIX market, I'd
have to say that the Sun royalty buyout has done more to hurt unity than
anything *any* of the BSD sources have *ever* done (or possibly could do,
if we take your opinion of market realities as gospel).
All in all, I have to support the BSD efforts, if only for the large number
of things I see going into SVR4 that originated there (PCFS, ISOFS, etc.).
Terry Lambert
te...@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!
att-out!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!uknet!fulcrum!idf
From: i...@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian Fitchet)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of 30 Mar 1994 01:24:04 GMT
Message-ID: <IDF.94Mar30155632@gloom.fulcrum.co.uk>
Sender: n...@fulcrum.co.uk
Organization: Fujitsu Fulcrum Telecommunications ltd., Fordrough Lane,
Birmingham
References: <SCHWARTZ.94Mar27135208@roke.cse.psu.edu> <CnDI07.26w@molly.uucp>
<2nakbk$dj9@u.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 14:56:31 GMT
Lines: 41
In article <2nakbk$...@u.cc.utah.edu>, te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:
>perpetrated again on some unsuspecting sap. But you have to admit that
>research occurs much faster in the Linux and BSD communities than it does
>in the commercial UNIX communities, and sometimes it seems that a fear of
Isn't this more likely because both Linux and BSD are seen to work
and have sources available. The first makes the average punter likely
to take the product on and the second allows afficionadoes to
"improve" the code. It is the improvement of code that leads to
"research" in these instances.
>If your complaint is one based on the fragmentation of the UNIX market, I'd
>have to say that the Sun royalty buyout has done more to hurt unity than
>anything *any* of the BSD sources have *ever* done (or possibly could do,
>if we take your opinion of market realities as gospel).
Au contraire. Sun have achieved the status that IBM achieved "some
time ago." Your job is safe if you buy Sun. Sun may not have the
best offering, but it is safe. With this in mind (and without it my
arguement breaks down) Sun *can* unify the UNIX market by
consolidating on one version (and with hindsight, I think SYSV will
win over BSD -- I am/was a BSD man) to which competeitors will feel
they have to interoperate (why have PC clones if they don't
interoperate with PCs? -- I'm not suggesting that HP, say, are trying
to clone Sun etc etc).
>All in all, I have to support the BSD efforts, if only for the large number
>of things I see going into SVR4 that originated there (PCFS, ISOFS, etc.).
Yes, but if SYSV can incorporate them and it is a better base to
start from...
--
Cheers,
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Fitchet I.D.Fitc...@fulcrum.co.uk
Fujitsu Fulcrum Telecommunications ltd., Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5FL
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!
spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!fasttech!zeke
From: z...@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Message-ID: <CnKDpB.C92@fasttech.com>
Organization: Fast Technology --- Beaverton, OR
References: <SCHWARTZ.94Mar27135208@roke.cse.psu.edu> <CnDI07.26w@molly.uucp>
<2nakbk$dj9@u.cc.utah.edu> <IDF.94Mar30155632@gloom.fulcrum.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 04:55:57 GMT
Lines: 57
In <IDF.94Mar30155...@gloom.fulcrum.co.uk> i...@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian Fitchet)
writes:
>>If your complaint is one based on the fragmentation of the UNIX market, I'd
>>have to say that the Sun royalty buyout has done more to hurt unity than
>>anything *any* of the BSD sources have *ever* done (or possibly could do,
>>if we take your opinion of market realities as gospel).
> Au contraire. Sun have achieved the status that IBM achieved "some
>time ago." Your job is safe if you buy Sun. Sun may not have the
>best offering, but it is safe. With this in mind (and without it my
>arguement breaks down) Sun *can* unify the UNIX market by
>consolidating on one version (and with hindsight, I think SYSV will
>win over BSD -- I am/was a BSD man) to which competeitors will feel
>they have to interoperate (why have PC clones if they don't
>interoperate with PCs? -- I'm not suggesting that HP, say, are trying
>to clone Sun etc etc).
Ha ha ha. A real knee-slapper, this one.
Sun's SPARC customers are STRONGLY resisting switching to Sun's newest
software for that architecture. I'm sure they want even more "unification"
effort from Sun. :-)
And Solaris for x86 has probably sold dozens, nay HUNDREDS of copies to date.
Really set the world on fire! NOT! Of course, the fact that it is pretty
incompatible with the other x86 Unixes is part of Sun's grand strategy to
"unify the UNIX market". Humorously enough, Sun's Interactive Unix sales are
falling rapidly, Solaris x86 isn't selling, Sun is reporting bad financials
on these products, and the Sun marketing pinheads probably don't have a
fucking clue as to what they're doing wrong!
Note that Sun didn't need a royalty buyout to do this. What will the buyout
allow them to accomplish that they couldn't have already? Cut the price on
the x86 version? Maybe. But at $249 UnixWare is pretty cheap and isn't selling
in large quantities either.
And don't forget that the buyout is for SYSV 4.0 not 4.2.
Is this what you mean by "unify"? Face it. Unix is a whole pile of
incompatible variants, all slightly different. And that's not about
to change. There's a much better chance that Unix will disappear from
the face of the earth than that it will somehow "unify".
IBM, Sun, DEC, HP, they're all happy running different versions. They think
this proprietary openness is somehow beneficial to them. And until they change
their thinking, there won't be any unification. Just check out UI and OSF.
Those two organizations really unified things, didn't they?!
Me, I'm happily running BSD/386 (yet another incompatible variant). Just
like NetBSD and FreeBSD and 386BSD all went their own separate ways.
And you can't buy a PC from any of the first-tier or second-tier vendors
without paying $Bill Gates for both DOS and Windoze, whether you want them
or not. THAT'S UNIFICATION. And $Bill is laughing all the way to the bank.
--
Bohdan The Failed Clinton Presidency - America Held Hostage - Day 436
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Message-ID: <Cns91G.C0H@molly.uucp>
Sender: vl...@molly.uucp (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
References: <CnKDpB.C92@fasttech.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 10:56:03 GMT
Lines: 36
Bohdan Tashchuk writes
> Sun's SPARC customers are STRONGLY resisting switching to Sun's newest
> software for that architecture. I'm sure they want even more "unification"
> effort from Sun. :-)
The (unofficial) numbers I've been given by my Sun reseller indicate that, of
new systems being sold, less than 50% are delivered with Solaris 1.1. (The
way it stacks up is: there are some models, typically lower-end, on which
Solaris 1.1 is more popular. This popularity does not exceed 50% of new
sales, however.)
The major reason for resisting Solaris 2 now appears to be simple inertia;
2.3 is strong enough to stand on its own merits. While there are many
benefits to upgrading to 2.x, there is also a disruption during the
changeover, and many sites simply don't want to suffer that disruption until
the benefits of upgrading are even more dramatic.
> And Solaris for x86 has probably sold dozens, nay HUNDREDS of copies to
> date.
IDC data indicates that Solaris x86 sold 15,000 copies during the last eight
months of 1993.
> IBM, Sun, DEC, HP, they're all happy running different versions. They think
> this proprietary openness is somehow beneficial to them. And until they
> change their thinking, there won't be any unification. Just check out UI
> and OSF. Those two organizations really unified things, didn't they?!
Well, UI is no longer, and its two major founders (Sun and AT&T/NCR/GIS) have
recently joined the OSF.
--
Jim Vlcek Elements of the information superhighway:
uunet!molly!vlcek UNIX: the concrete
molly!vl...@uunet.uu.net TCP/IP: the road signs
Beautiful downtown St. Paul Windows: the fast-food joints
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!psuvax1!psuvax1.cse.psu.edu!schwartz
From: schwa...@roke.cse.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
In-Reply-To: uunet!molly!vlcek's message of Tue, 5 Apr 1994 10:56:03 GMT
Message-ID: <SCHWARTZ.94Apr6154726@roke.cse.psu.edu>
Sender: n...@cse.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: roke.cse.psu.edu
References: <CnKDpB.C92@fasttech.com> <Cns91G.C0H@molly.uucp>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:47:26 GMT
Lines: 8
In article <Cns91G....@molly.uucp> uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
(The way it stacks up is: there are some models, typically lower-end,
on which Solaris 1.1 is more popular. This popularity does not
exceed 50% of new sales, however.)
That's because SunOS is not available on the higher-end machines, not
because people wouldn't prefer it. That's how we got our first Solaris
machine.
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
sdd.hp.com!think.com!barmar
From: bar...@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Unix Source Code sold to SUN
Date: 11 Apr 1994 02:41:56 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <2oaddkINNjps@early-bird.think.com>
References: <CnKDpB.C92@fasttech.com> <Cns91G.C0H@molly.uucp>
<SCHWARTZ.94Apr6154726@roke.cse.psu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com
In article <SCHWARTZ.94Apr6154...@roke.cse.psu.edu> schwa...@roke.cse.psu.edu
(Scott Schwartz) writes:
>In article <Cns91G....@molly.uucp> uunet!molly!vlcek (Jim Vlcek) writes:
> (The way it stacks up is: there are some models, typically lower-end,
> on which Solaris 1.1 is more popular. This popularity does not
> exceed 50% of new sales, however.)
>
>That's because SunOS is not available on the higher-end machines, not
>because people wouldn't prefer it. That's how we got our first Solaris
>machine.
Because of customer demand, Sun eventually came out with a version of SunOS
4.1.3 that runs on the new, high-end machines. And when they announced the
SS5 and SS20 last week they announced a version of SunOS 4.1.3 that
supports them as well.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar