🚀 go-pugleaf

In <id.G6TV.801@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <jdd.724102048@cdf.toronto.edu> jdd@cdf.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
>> This leads to the following definition: "Openness" is essentially a measure
>> of the minimum migration cost of replacing a system with another from a 
>> different manufacturer.

>That's far too simple. I can replace a network of VAXen running Ultrix on
>DECnet more easily than I can replace a network of Suns running SunOS if my
>application is using DPS or NeWS (respectively), since DPS is available from
>more sources, but I can integrate an RS6000 in the Sun network a lot more
>easily than I can integrate it in the Ultrix network.

Good point. Certainly ease of replacement varies from case to case. Comparing
the "openness" of two options isn't always an easy exercise. 

>If I have a network of DOS machines running Novell it's going to be really
>painful to provide Usenet news to these seats, and moderately painful just
>to give them file-level access to my VMS based VAXen, but if I'm running
>OpenNET it'll be quite easy... but OpenNET is only available from one vendor.

This is interoperability (in this case, between VMS and DOS boxes), not
openness. Let's not confuse the two. 

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928