> In article <248 at omen.UUCP> caf at omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
> >Now that we have at least four announced versions of SYS V Unix for the
> >80286 (Xenix, PC-IX, Venix, and the 6300+ OSmerge), I would like to
> >know if these systems are compatible at the binary program level that
> >Bill Gates has declared imperative for commerical success.
>
> Bill Gates has his head up an unnamed orifice.... The success of UNIX in
(rest of flame elided for brevity)
Everyone seems to be missing the point here. Yes, it is wonderful that
Unix is (more or less) portable. But even if you hate MS-DOS (as do I)
you must admit that it has been wildly more successful than all flavors
of Unix put together. This is largely because of ... binary
compatibility. A software vendor can write a program for the
admittedly braindamaged IBM PC architecture, and can be assured that
the executable binary will run on over TWO MILLION MACHINES. That's
two million potential customers, folks.
Now, sure, software vendors *could* just ship sources in shar
archives... on 69 different types of media... and let the customers
compile it... and maybe it would compile everywhere... and maybe
nobody would rip off the source code and resell it... But let's get
serious. End users neither want nor need source code, nor compilers,
nor shar archives, nor any of that crap. They want to buy a little
black biscuit with bits on it that just plugs into their little 16-bit
toaster and does their application, right out of the box, no
compilation or customization or messing around required.
You need to have a single (or at least a dominant) binary data and
media standard because dealers and distributors cannot afford to stock
69 different versions of each product. (Hell, they can't afford to
stock even *one* version of the low-volume products.) There is a large
retail PC industry out there, ignored by most Unix-oids, which dwarfs
the Unix industry in total dollars. It's about time the Unix vendors
realized it was in their collective interest to create binary
compatibility, at least for Unix versions running on identical
architectures. There's no good reason, for instance, that Xenix,
Venix, and PC/IX couldn't use the *same* register conventions and
*same* a.out (x.out) formats and the *same* system call numbers. It'd
be a (small) step in the right direction.
Yes, I prefer Unix. But I also prefer large quantities of money to
smaller ones. That's why I develop software for the IBM PC. I just wish
the Unix market could develop into one in which money could be made.
But until the Unix "industry" (I use the word loosely) decides to start
acting like a business, with economic goals that include making the
technical concessions necessary to sell systems to real live end users...
the money will continue to be made in PC-land.
--
Larry Campbell decvax!genrad
The Boston Software Works, Inc. \
120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell
Boston MA 02109 / /
ihnp4 cbosgd
ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell at harvard.ARPA