SGI: Discussion

The natural shift away from antiquated RISC/proprietary Unix-based servers and the movement toward high performance, open architecture.

This is a quote from the latest SGI newsletter, the linux push continues.

Timberoz>Craig

Timberoz wrote: antiquated RISC/proprietary Unix

As opposed to "antiquated CISC/proprietary Windows".

It is odd that Windows is somehow considered less proprietary than UNIX or OpenVMS, when in fact it's almost the opposite - at least almost everything is documented for UNIX/VMS, and for several of the Unices it's cross-platform (Solaris, xBSD, Linux). Come to think of it, OpenVMS is semi-cross platform, too (reports are that it works on non-HP standard (i.e. no fancy stuff like Altix) Itaniums).

Contrast that to Windows which is not open and not fully documented.


Triumph of MS whitewashers (marketing).

yes, sadly marketing sells more than anything these days

They seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that Minix (and hence the "open" Linux that SGI are touting these days) wouldn't even exist if the APIs and internals of "proprietary UNIX" systems weren't so widely documented, understood (and in some cases formally standardised), that people could create those UNIX clones in the first place.

.... and don't forget how much was written at universities rather than commercial environments. ( I'm taking the stand that Universities aren't just in it for the money )

porter wrote: .... and don't forget how much was written at universities rather than commercial environments. ( I'm taking the stand that Universities aren't just in it for the money )

The CSRG definitely wasn't (unless you count the tax dollars).

kramlq wrote: :roll:
They seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that Minix (and hence the "open" Linux that SGI are touting these days) wouldn't even exist if the APIs and internals of "proprietary UNIX" systems weren't so widely documented, understood (and in some cases formally standardised), that people could create those UNIX clones in the first place.

How so? All they're saying is that proprietary UNIX has been "antiquated" by newer solutions, possibly ones based on the older UNIX!

I disagree with their blanket assessment of proprietary UNIX systems as "antiquated" and open systems as "higher performance" (mostly because it's a dumb blanket assumption to make, not because it's completely false) but I don't see where they're saying that UNIX wasn't necessary for newer open systems - just that open systems have surpassed it.

bri3d wrote: How so? All they're saying is that proprietary UNIX has been "antiquated" by newer solutions, possibly ones based on the older UNIX!

I disagree with their blanket assessment of proprietary UNIX systems as "antiquated" and open systems as "higher performance" (mostly because it's a dumb blanket assumption to make, not because it's completely false) but I don't see where they're saying that UNIX wasn't necessary for newer open systems - just that open systems have surpassed it.

Well, to first rephrase the quote and highlight the fundamental message I see:

"natural shift ... moving from antiquated RISC/proprietary Unix to an open architecture"

1) Proprietary UNIX already was/is (essentially) an open architecture. The fact that cleanroom clones such as Linux exist at all, and can run most software originally written for "Proprietary UNIX" is testament to this fact. And so is the POSIX specification.
2) The fact that they feel they are "shifting" or "moving" to an open architecture suggests they don't recognise that their previous platform ("Proprietary UNIX") was actually an open architecture. It wasn't open source, but it was definitely an open architecture, which is what they are speaking of.

I don't see where they're saying that UNIX wasn't necessary for newer open systems - just that open systems have surpassed it.

If you reread what I wrote, I am not claiming that either. Just that they are oblivious to the fact that "proprietary UNIX" was actually so open that despite its complexity, people had enough info (documentation, standards etc) to create a working multi-million line reimplementation of it without access to any original source code. Does that sound like a closed architecture?

kramlq wrote: I am not claiming that either. Just that they are oblivious to the fact that "proprietary UNIX" was actually so open that despite its complexity, people had enough info (documentation, standards etc) to create a working multi-million line reimplementation of it without access to any original source code. Does that sound like a closed architecture?

You could stop right after "they are oblivious ..." It's all marketing lies and distortions.

Too bad so many people who sign the checks believe that nonsense.

Hmm - "open architecture" as applied to software: UNIX was the original "open system" - all parts were documented, and the sources were available to anyone who wanted them from AT&T (provided you could pay) and Berkeley (originally required license from AT&T to get BSD, but later not).

"Open architecture" as applied to hardware: SPARC. Anyone can build a SPARC processor, and SPARC international will provide stuff to help you do it. Sun even has an open core that you can grab and build onto (with some restrictions). Open Firmware is a standard, and there's even a FOSS implementation in development now. Same with SBUS...

Compare this with x86 and Itanium, which are available from a few vendors but aren't "open standards". BIOS is provided by only a few companies, and not completely documented. EFI is a bit better, but things still are generally proprietary.

Sounds to me that the new SGI must be moving to SPARC-based hardware running Solaris/xBSD/Linux if they're really "... moving from antiquated RISC/proprietary Unix to an open architecture"

Although I suppose that MIPS is open enough to count.

Too bad, though - I would have hoped that someone would have picked up Alpha again, but that is pretty proprietary. Even more proprietary than Itanium and Intel x86... .

hamei wrote: Too bad so many people who sign the checks believe that nonsense.

straight to the point!
very good description for the whole market over the last years