[TUHS] Other POSIX Candidates?

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Tuesday, August 6th, 2024 at 11:36 AM, Heinz Lycklama <heinz at osta.com> wrote:

> The POSIX standard is based on the /usr/group standard
> which we started in 1981 under /usr/group, and turned
> into the standard in 1984, which was then turned over
> to the IEEE under the leadership of Jim Isaac. As the
> chair of the /usr/group standards effort, we made every
> attempt to include as many UNIX vendors as possible,
> systems vendors as well as application vendors. The
> work of the /usr/group standard was joined by all major
> computer manufacturers - mainframe, mini-computer,
> and micro-computer - plus applications vendors who
> were interested in having their apps run on as many
> platforms as possible. The members of the /usr/group
> standard committee also included the vendors of
> UNIX-like systems who did not have access to the source
> code for the UNIX System.
> 
> ISC (my employer at the time) also developed a UNIX
> emulation product that ran on the VAX VMS system in 1979.
> We had an interest in providing a platform for as many
> applications as possible on the VAX UNIX emulation platform.
> I do not recall that Govt contracts were a big concern at
> the time that we started the UNIX standards effort, but it
> did become a concern over the years.
> 
> My recall of the UNIX standards beginnings.
> 
> Heinz
> 
> On 8/6/2024 11:09 AM, arnold at skeeve.com wrote:
> 
> > For a long time DEC had "VMS POSIX" product. I don't know much
> > more about it, other than that it existed and was what you
> > describe, more or less.
> > 
> > Marc Rochkind mrochkind at gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > As I remember, part of the rationale was that DEC wanted something that
> > > could be specified in an RFP that was defined in terms of an interface,
> > > rather than an implementation. In theory this would allow them to propose
> > > VMS with an appropriate interface layer. I don't know if anything like this
> > > was ever created. But the interface standard sure was, of course.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:32 AM Rik Farrow rik at rikfarrow.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I recall something different than what others had suggested. When the US
> > > > government issued requests for proposals, they weren't permitted to specify
> > > > products by name. In particular, if you wanted something that wasn't
> > > > Microsoft, you couldn't actually specify that it be Unix.
> > > > 
> > > > So POSIX was born partially as a way of letting it be known you wanted a
> > > > Unix variant rather than something else.
> > > > 
> > > > Certainly porting was an issue. I did work for a software shop in the late
> > > > 80s and early 90s that produced graphics software, and porting between Unix
> > > > systems was relatively easy, compared to, say, moving the software to
> > > > Apollo's DomainIX, a sort of Unix-like version of Apollo Domain. With Unix
> > > > systems and this software, the biggest issue was fonts, as the software
> > > > needed to be able to calculate the extent, that is, the bounding box, for
> > > > text that was to be displayed.
> > > > 
> > > > Strangely enough, the other big issue was time.
> > > > 
> > > > Rik
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:29 AM Peter Weinberger (温博格) via TUHS <
> > > > tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > and the folks from PARC wanted a more RPC-based open OS, according to
> > > > > my not-yet-fully-retrieved memories.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 2:40 AM arnold at skeeve.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > segaloco via TUHS tuhs at tuhs.org wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Another way to put it would be as a chicken and egg, which came
> > > > > > > first, ...
> > > > > > > ..., or the ongoing need for UNIX standardization finding sponsorship
> > > > > > > by the working groups, IEEE, etc.?
> > > > > > > This.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Try to understand what things were like at the time. There were
> > > > > > a ton of competing Unix systems, all different:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - IBM: AIX on the mainframe and PS/2, which were different from
> > > > > > AIX on the RT/PC and later RS/6000 (workstations).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - DEC: Ultrix on minicomputers and microvaxen, and later on MIPS
> > > > > > based workstations
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Data General: DG/UX on their minicomputers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Pyramid: A BSD/System V hybrid RISC minicomputer
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Sun: Workstations, 680x0 based and later SPARC based, and servers.
> > > > > > Initially BSD based, later SVR4 based.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Workstations from HP, Tektronix, NBI, others I've probably forgotten,
> > > > > > 3B2 and 3B1/Unix PC from AT&T... The list goes on and on and on.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Things split roughly along BSD/System V lines, but code wasn't portable.
> > > > > > Did you use bcopy() or memcpy()? index() or strchr()? There was lots
> > > > > > of mixing and matching happening, too.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There was a crying need for a standard. The mess is what begot GNU
> > > > > > Autoconf, which made a difference at the time. Having the ANSI C
> > > > > > standard
> > > > > > also helped.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Arnold
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > My new email address is mrochkind at gmail.com mrochkind at gmail.com

Thank you so much everyone for the thorough clarifications!  I think this little "selected" nugget may originate with verbiage on Wikipedia although I feel like I've seen at least one other source attempt to posit there was a selection to be made. From the Wikipedia overview:

"Unix was selected as the basis for a standard system interface partly because it was "manufacturer-neutral"."

My understanding aligns with what others have stated, that this was always a UNIX standardization effort, not some "which OS is it gonna be" that landed on UNIX for convenience. I figured this was the case but worth asking about anyhow.  Maybe it's time to dig out the old Wikipedia account and clarify that verbiage...

- Matt G.