Re: Apple PowerMac G5
Em Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:40:38 +0800, debia escreveu:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>> Em Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:36:51 +0800, debia escreveu:
>> > Mostly, though, you still got to run IBM operating systems on them.
>> Which were only available because the US government forced IBM to sell
> Sell it? IBM gave it away. That's why I can get MVS, MVT, MFT right now.
> VS1 I think can be had, if not it's because it's been mislaid over
> time. SVS I don't know about.
IBM gave it to customers. An Amdahl or Fujitsu customer
couldn't have it until the unbundling settlement.
>> So how open that makes it? Not at all, in my book. EBCDIC, changing
>> undocumented interfaces... that's not my definition of openness.
> The problem was they stole proprietary software. The hardware platform
> was open enough to allow them to write their own.
I know nothing of stealing. What I know is that I don't
consider undocumented, unstable interfaces as open enough to write an
OS on, unless you are a free software developer with time at your
hands and no deadlines... certainly not feasible for clonemakers.
Back to PPC, Be gave up the Mac market precisely because of such
>> > The impendiment to writing your own OS for the S/360 was not the
>> > available information - back then the OS was free, and I think came
>> > with source.
>> Bundled, not free. The source was available but controlled.
> I had access to the ASP source, and I wasn't controlled.
It was and is subject to copyright. Copy it and you may go to
jail. If IBM never prosecutes you that's immaterial.
>> I am not talking simply writing OSs here, but writing open OSs
>> on an open platform. The PC platform allowed proprietarisation by MS
> Whether the OS is open is the author's choice. It has nothing to do with
> the openness of the hardware specs.
Yes, it has. Witness how many devices today aren't supported
at all (eg 802.11g) or only by binary drivers (eg AFS, nVidia) even in
GNU/Linux. Witness FSF insistence that one doesn't include binary
strings from firmware in GNU/Linux.
>> because IBM tried to make it even closer with IBM OS/2 and PS/2, thus
> OS/2 was a joint venture between IBM and MS from the beginning, and both
> sold it.
Actually it was MS DOS protected mode with MS W16 on top,
until IBM came about and said MS W16 was too ugly.
But the fact is that IBM OS/2 run well only on PS/2 and later
on licensed clones, and in a few PC clones. Until version 3 (Warp) it
wasn't any good for white boxen or even small brands.
> It's true the PS/2 (and MCA) platform was screwed down as hard as IBM
> could do it, protected by patents and licence agreements - you could get
> a licence to manufacture PS/2-compatible gear, and someone (Ferranti I
> think) did.
This happened only when IBM saw it couldn't screw their
customers and keep them. Even then it was incredibly expensive, and
nearly broke the clonemakers who went with it. Only when it was
already a lost case IBM really allowed reasonable cloning.
>> allowing MS and the clone-makers to be seen as relatively open, with
>> EISA, MS-DOS, MS OS/2 and later MS Windows. Later there was the ACE
> MS always had the right to sell DOS to anyone it wanted.
Never saw the contrary. But this doesn't make it open, unless
it be comparatively with the IBM PS/2 and OS/2 combination.
> EISA was an attempt to combat MCA, headed by Compaq, NEC and others.
> Some sided with both camps.
>> There was never MS WNT for the PA-RISC. There was for SPARC,
>> but never saw the light of the day. Likewise Solaris for the PowerPC
>> was dead at arrival.
> I read those names out of my "Start Here" for "Microsoft Windows NT
> Workstation" document.
Unrelease software at best, perhaps on the same level as the
>> Yes, but why is that? Because NT was optimised only for the
>> IA32, where it inherited MS-DOS and OS/2 assembly, time-proven code,
>> agains all-new C-only RISC code in the other platforms. Not to
>> mention ridiculous availability of workstation and other applications
>> on RISC.
> I would have thought that, from Microsoft's viewpoint, the dollars
> weren't there.
MS is used to loose money before making something succeed.
There is a case they don't reach black since 1,995 on their quest for
market totalitarism, very nicely made by Bill Parish.
> For similar reasons, IBM has dropped AIX from some hardware platforms,
> and has been talking for some time about dropping it altogether.
Yes, but this would be dropping a semi-open plaftorm (AIX) for
an almost totally open one (GNU/Linux).
/ \ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
\ / http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
/ \ Responda à lista, não a mim diretamente! +55 (11) 5686 2219
Dê-me nota se te ajudei: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro