🚀 go-pugleaf

[]
>In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>
>This is a request for opinions (and an offer of information)
>about the Japanese TRON project.
>One of the TRON project achievements to date is a standard 32-bit
>microprocessor architecture which has been implemented by Hitachi,
>Fujitsu, Toshiba, Oki, and others.

How about because the TRON hardware architecture is a really ugly
CISC architecture which looks worse to build in hardware than the
only somewhat ugly CISCs we already have to deal with.

--
		  baum@apple.com		(408)974-3385
{decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum

In article <32424@apple.Apple.COM> baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum) writes:
>[]
>>In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>>
>>This is a request for opinions (and an offer of information)
>How about because the TRON hardware architecture is a really ugly
>CISC architecture which looks worse to build in hardware than the
>only somewhat ugly CISCs we already have to deal with.

The same can also sort of be said about the OS.  I have attended
two IEEE COMPCON sessions and have scanned the Proceedings as well.

There are too many newsgroups on this, so I'm only following up to os.misc.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  				Live free or die.

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>
>
>This is a request for opinions (and an offer of information)
>about the Japanese TRON project. As a consultant to
>Nippon Telegraph and Telephone for their
>work on CTRON (a TRON subproject), I seem to be one of very
>...


My personal opinion is that it is viewed as a way for Japan to 
"infiltrate" a portion of the US computer market and then take
it over.  It's sort of like the
car market.  They learn from the US on how to do something and
then they out do us in the market place.  I don't think that
the US computer companies want Japan to come up with a better
way to do something and then open the doors for them to get into
the US market (sort of handing the lynchman the rope to hang you).

Of course you could argue that this would "stimulate" the US intellects
to do a better job (as in the auto world).  


                                I don't knoooooow?
					Kevin.

internet: kevin@logicon.arpa
uucp: nosc!logicon.arpa!kevin


Of course these are my ideas, no one else can speel this bad.

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>*WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
>
>I do have some theories.  Which one do you think is right?
>
>1. It's a Japanese project, not relevant outside Japan.

It would not surprise me if this is a factor, but I've developed very
conflicting impressions of TRON from reading articles in the Nihon
keizai shinbun. Some articles have made it out as a UNIX-killer.
Everything you always wanted from UNIX plus realtime plus kanji. Others
have left me with the impression that it was little more than a knock
off on UNIX, designed to get around the charges that accepting UNIX in
Japan would be bowing to American software imperialism. Other articles
have left me with the impession that it was nothing more than glorified
MSX.

NOTE: These impressions comes from the Japanese language press.

>have posted this to the most appropriate newsgroups.  If there
>is any interest, I will be glad to post or mail further information
>about TRON, and/or summaries of any comments received.  Thanks.

I'd be interested in any English or Japanese materials you have on the
subject.

Earl H. Kinmonth
History Department
University of California, Davis
916-752-1636 (voice, fax [2300-0800 PDT])
916-752-0776 secretary

ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck
ehkinmonth@ucdavis

In article <456@logicon.arpa> kevin@LOGICON.ARPA (Kevin McIntyre) writes:
>In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:

>My personal opinion is that it is viewed as a way for Japan to
>"infiltrate" a portion of the US computer market and then take it over.

Yellow peril in computing, eh what?  I've read a fair sprinkling of
articles about TRON in Japanese.  I've never seen your notion expressed,
but there is a Japanese fear of being subject to what some have called
"US software imperialism."

>It's sort of like the car market. They learn from the US on how to do
>something and then they out do us in the market place. I don't think

The Japanese automobile industry drew on various sources: domestic,
American, European. Overall, they probably learned more from Europe
than the US. Look at the early Japanese models. You see far more
European and Japanese engineering than you do GM Rocket 88 Dynaflow
super V8, 4 mpg, design.

>that the US computer companies want Japan to come up with a better way
>to do something and then open the doors for them to get into the US
>market (sort of handing the lynchman the rope to hang you).

To change metaphors a bit -- if you sit around jerking off and your
competition spends their time pumping iron, guess who ends up with
the muscles?

>Of course you could argue that this would "stimulate" the US intellects
>to do a better job (as in the auto world).

Or to raise prices under a quota system.

>Of course these are my ideas, no one else can speel this bad.

Let's hope not.

From article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney):
> 
> *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
> 
> I do have some theories.  Which one do you think is right?
> 
> 1. It's a Japanese project, not relevant outside Japan.
> 

	With this (as well as other "foreign processors")
	we can see old words:

	"It's outside US, it threatens us"

	or

	"It's outside US, it's not serious, propably some student
	 project"

	We saw ARM dropped out from RISC list, although it's
	first commercial RISC.

	TRON is forgotten.

	Have you heard about Philips 68070, or Hitachi H-series?

	Is transputer known to You?

--
pl@tut.fi				! All opinions expressed above are
Pertti Lehtinen				! purely offending and in subject
Tampere University of Technology	! to change without any further
Software Systems Laboratory		! notice

>From article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney):
> *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*

I've said this privately...  what the heck, I'll say it in
public 8-).  The Japanese blew most of their credibility in
this field with the Fifth Generation campaign; most of us took
that very seriously and then found very little significant in
it.  TRON seems to be much the same -- we hear lots of vague
hints of greatness and then see nothing much of worth.  There
is also the fact that US participation isn't welcome in the
developement phase....

					-hankd@ee.ecn.purdue.edu

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
> *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*

> I do have some theories.  Which one do you think is right?

> 1. It's a Japanese project, not relevant outside Japan.

I think that's a relevant factor, but it's not the whole story by any means.

Japan Incs "we will bury you" attitude with the 5th generation project really
doesn't help any, either.

> 2. It's not needed; there are enough standards.

That depends on the area. I think people in the US *are* getting tired of
standards... there are so many of them. Maybe there's a bit of baby-and-
bathwater stuff going on here. But just a bit.

> 3.  Only single-company de facto standards (like IBM) are practical.
>     Companies won't cooperate.

This is a good point. Not only don't companies tend to co-operate, but
in the US there are laws that restrict companies from co-operating.

> 4.  It's interesting, but will have no effect on me.

this is basically a corrolary to #1 and #2.

> 5. There's plenty of discussion of TRON outside Japan; you just have
>    missed it all.

:->

> 6. Other?

For me, here's the main reason: it completely ignores the standards work that
*has* been going on in the US. Basically, no part of TRON is based in any way
on the UNIX system call interface. What I've heard of it bears a strong
resemblance to the messed-up massive-shared-library interfaces common to
both '60s operating systems and (more recently) things like OS/2 and X. And,
at least in the US, it doesn't have either a 500-pound-gorilla (IBM) or the
virtue of public domain status (thanks to the X consortium) behind it.

Speaking of design-by-comittee: what's the status of ADA in Japan?
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>
>
>This is a request for opinions (and an offer of information)
>about the Japanese TRON project. As a consultant to
>Nippon Telegraph and Telephone for their
>work on CTRON (a TRON subproject), I seem to be one of very
>few Westerners involved with TRON. Some time ago, in answer
>to a question that appeared in comp.arch, I posted some basic
>information about TRON. As far as I know, there has been *NO*
>further discussion of TRON anywhere on the net. Why not?
>

I, for one, have been interested in what was happening with this effort,
especially BTRON because of my background in designing computer-human
interfaces for large-scale (near-) real-time systems.  But, other than the
minimal articles that you've mentioned, I've seen very little in the way of
papers presented or short news articles in the appropriate trade press.
I've seen little in the way of announcing the means for participation or
obtaining these "standards" that were mentioned.  This is often true of many
standards efforts, especially volunteer efforts, but until people find out
more about the efforts, interest will continue to be low, I would expect.

In many ways, this is the classical chicken and egg technology transfer
problem.

   ____    ______   _____      _____=====        Bill Hefley
  / __ \  | _____| |_   _|   _____=========	 Software Engrg Institute
 | |__|_| | |__      | |   _____=============	 Carnegie Mellon 
 _\___ \  |  __|     | | _____=================  Pittsburgh, PA 15213
 | |__| | | |____   _| |_  _____=============	 (412) 268-7793
  \____/  |______| |_____|   _____=========	 ARPA:   weh@sei.cmu.edu
			       -----=====        BITNET: weh%sei.cmu.edu
                                                 CSNET:  weh%sei.cmu.edu@
                                                         relay.cs.net
 C a r n e g i e   M e l l o n  U n i v e r s i t y

+---------------------------- Disclaimer -------------------------------+
|  The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect |
|                        those of my employer.                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Well, I haven't been discussing TRON because this is the first I've heard of
it.  I'm interested, particularly in what commercial applications we're likely
to see first in the US (since I'm less likely to be able to see and try things
that exist only in other countries), and also in what neat new stuff the TRON
project is doing.  It sounds like the project is far too big for anything more
than a brief overview in this newsgroup, but could you direct me (and others)
to a source (or sources) of detailed information about TRON, both in terms of 
its objectives (which I'm sure I can glean from the magazine articles) and its
current (and ongoing) status?

	-Peter

In article <4567@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>> *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
>
>> I do have some theories.  Which one do you think is right?
>
>> 1. It's a Japanese project, not relevant outside Japan.
>
>I think that's a relevant factor, but it's not the whole story by any means.
>
>Japan Incs "we will bury you" attitude with the 5th generation project really
>doesn't help any, either.

The "we will bury you" attitude, if it ever existed, was a figment of
Feigenbaum's (or that air-head female collaborator's) imagination. The
Japanese are hardly above criticism, but they don't deserve to be
blamed for the machinations of an academic scam artist like Feigenbaum.

>> 2. It's not needed; there are enough standards.
>
>That depends on the area. I think people in the US *are* getting tired of
>standards... there are so many of them. Maybe there's a bit of baby-and-
>bathwater stuff going on here. But just a bit.

Maybe the hackers and the adepts are getting tired of standards because
standards decrease the demand for the services of high priced anal
retentives who get off on knowing the arbitrary and often assine
distinctions between various systems, releases, etc. I've not seen any
evidence that ordinary users or corporate purchasers are tired of
standards.

>
>> 3.  Only single-company de facto standards (like IBM) are practical.
>>     Companies won't cooperate.
>
>This is a good point. Not only don't companies tend to co-operate, but
>in the US there are laws that restrict companies from co-operating.

Apparently you haven't been reading either the (computer) trade papers
or such general items as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times,
etc. As part of an attempt to meet Japanese competition (real or
imagined) by using Japanese techniques (real or imagined), the
RayGun/Bush administrations and the Justice Department have been
encouraging "corporate research cooperation" by a variety of means:
interpretation of anti-trust laws, specific legislation, subsidies,
etc.

The historical fact that ~American~ companies have not chosen to
cooperate on basic research does not in and of itself determine what is
efficient, morally correct, or whatever. For better or worse, the day
when American patterns would be assumed to be best is rapidly waning.
(This is not to say that Japanese patterns are better. Rather, there
are more heavy weights in the ring today than there were a couple of
decades ago. US firms cannot assume that American ways are
automatically the best the way they could and did through most of the
post world war II period.)

>> 4.  It's interesting, but will have no effect on me.

This sounds rather like Detroit's observations concerning Japanese
automobile engineering in the 1960s. It would be naive to assume that
history will repeat itself in computing; it would be equally navie to
assume that it will not.

>For me, here's the main reason: it completely ignores the standards
>work that *has* been going on in the US. Basically, no part of TRON is
>based in any way on the UNIX system call interface. What I've heard of
>it bears a strong resemblance to the messed-up massive-shared-library
>interfaces common to both '60s operating systems and (more recently)
>things like OS/2 and X. And, at least in the US, it doesn't have either
>a 500-pound-gorilla (IBM) or the virtue of public domain status (thanks
>to the X consortium) behind it.

Here, I think you're on reasonably solid ground, but I'm not sure this
is the basis for writing off Japanese efforts. Although my period of
specialization is Japanese history of the 1930s and 1940s, I've read
enough of the 1950s and 1960s to have some sense of how Japanese firms
have operated. Following obsolete or unproductive American || European
lines has actually been fairly common in industries that later became
successful. To a degree Japanese firms seem to learn from this process
or are driven to make breakthroughs by the frustation of trying to
develop what they thought were good (foreign) ideas.

False starts, dead ends, and general confusion have been a large part
of Japanese efforts in other areas. They may fall flat on TRON, but I
would not be banking that a failure on this project will set the
pattern for everything the Japanese do in this area.

...
[mail] [mail] [mail]
...
In article <11948@pur-ee.UUCP>, hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) writes:
> >From article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney):
> > *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
> 
> I've said this privately...  what the heck, I'll say it in
...
[more mail] [more mail] [more mail]
...

Ok, folks. Let's get back to computer architecture, please ?

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
> 
> 
> The goal of TRON is to develop a wide-ranging collection of standards
> for use in a very comprehensive distributed network -- one which is
> globally connected but involves everything from large hosts to
> workstations to a multitude of embedded processors in "intelligent
> objects" such as the components of a "smart house."  In the TRON
> vision, all of these elements could easily communicate, even though
> produced by many different manufacturers.
> 

One aspect of this, the communications between the processors, has me 
worried somewhat.  When I read some reports on TRON (which are not handy
at the moment), I noticed that the intent was for all processors on the
TRON network to have the ability to communicate. The `smartness' intended
for the TRON network could be subverted to governmental or criminal misuse
very easily. Remember, just using a credit card in stores today with card
readers could let someone (with intents other than making sure your credit
limit hasn't been exceeded) know where you are and what you're doing. 


-- 
Mark Charette             "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. 
Electronic Data Systems   "I like you a lot." was the reply.
750 Tower Drive           Voice: (313)265-7006        FAX: (313)265-5770
Troy, MI 48007-7019       charette@edsews.eds.com     uunet!edsews!charette 

In article <25518@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
> Maybe the hackers and the adepts are getting tired of standards because
> standards decrease the demand for the services of high priced anal
> retentives who get off on knowing the arbitrary and often assine
> distinctions between various systems, releases, etc.

We're getting a bit hot under the collar here, aren't we?

I'm not talking about SysVr3.2.9u.16b-7 versus SysVr3.2.9u.27-alpha. I'm
talking about SAA versus AIX/OSF versus AT&T, or Display Postscript versus
NeWS versus X. Where you have several competing standards that aren't going
to combine into anything good.

TRON, from here, just looks like more of the same.

> I've not seen any
> evidence that ordinary users or corporate purchasers are tired of
> standards.

I don't think that ordinary users care about the technical merits of AIX
versus SysV.3.2. But they're both bases for opposing standards.

> the RayGun/Bush administrations and the Justice Department have been
> encouraging "corporate research cooperation" by a variety of means:
> interpretation of anti-trust laws, specific legislation, subsidies,
> etc.

That's nice, but the laws are still on the books. And as S&Ls are learning,
dead administrations don't keep promises very well. Now if Congress should
step in...
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.

> >From article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney):
> > *WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
> 

The research community doesn't care because it is someone elses project.

Industry doesn't care because it isn't a product yet.

The whole mess looks like another non-tariff barrier to me.

F.Y.I   there is a book on TRON, from either academic press or 
        Springer Verlag.

Mark Zenier    uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz    markz@ssc.uucp
                            uunet!amc!

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>
	jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:

>The goal of TRON is to develop a wide-ranging collection of standards
>for use in a very comprehensive distributed network

TRON was supported by many vendors because it prevent NEC from
monopolizing the government's computer market for education. As
NEC's PC9801 (msdos 8086 machine) was the only usable machine
when department of education was choosing the machine for education,
other vendors cooperated and promoted TRON as their standard.

TRON have surely succeeded to delay the final decision and many
vendors are now ready with their own MSDOS machines.

Partly because of the above fact and partly because TRON can not
achieve its promised (but impossible) goal yet, TRON is no longer
a requirement for educational computers. MSDOS is OK.

Thus, TRON has finished its political role.

>Whether the TRON standards are good or bad, the project's scale, and
>results to date, make it certain that it will have some impact.

Bad standards will have bad impacts.

>*WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*

MOST JAPANESE RESEARCHERS DO NOT CARE EITHER. WE USE UNIX.

>6. Other?

1) TRON is ugly and bad standard in all respect.

2) It is my impression that TRON itself dose not want open discussion
   with knowledgeable people. It prefers an average people (like
   average CNN watchers) who can be easily deceived.

				Masataka Ohta

				mohta%cc.titech.junet@relay.cs.net

PS

I don't like MSDOS, but it is far better than TRON.

In article <382@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) writes:
>
>[The Japanese will be taking over with TRON]
>
>*WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEEM TO CARE?*
>
>I do have some theories.  Which one do you think is right?
>
>1. It's a Japanese project, not relevant outside Japan.
>

But it seems obvious that the Japanese will dominate this segment---why should
US concerns give them any more of a head start than they already have?
Who wants to be in the "fourth string" behind Fujitsu, NEC and Hitachi?

>
>6. Other?
>

Maybe the TRON CPU chip sucks?


>Jim Mooney				Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science
>(304) 293-3607				West Virginia University
>					Morgantown, WV 26506

Matt Kennel

The June 89 IEEE Micro is a "special Far East issue" edited by Ken Sakamura,
with the lead articles devoted to TRON subjects.

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

Dear Colleagues,

I understand that Dr. Mooney's questinaire produced a flurry of
postings on the TRON project. As the leader of the project,
I am delighted to hear frank opinions on the project from
many people.

I have followed only the beginning part and then could keep up
with the network due to my teaching load at the University of Tokyo.
So what I have summarised may be a little out of date.
Please excuse me on this.

I noticed that the TRON project is not widely  known
at least in the USA. If you can spare some time, reading the
following articles/books gets you enough knowledge to discuss the
topics on the TRON project in a constructive mannner.

	Sakamura, Ken (ed).  IEEE MICRO Special issue on TRON.  
	Vol 7, No. 2, April 1987.

	Sakamura, Ken (ed.)
	TRON Project 1987: Open-Architecture Computer Systems
	(Proceedings of the Third TRON Project Symposium)
	Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, 1987

	Sakamura, Ken (ed.)  IEEE MICRO special issue on the 32-Bit
	Microprocessor in Japan.  Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1988.

	Sakamura, Ken (ed.)
	TRON Project 1988: Open-Architecture Computer Systems
	(Proceedings of the Fifth TRON Project Symposium)
	Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, 1988

	Sakamura, Ken, and Sprague, Richard.  The TRON Project.
	BYTE, Vol 14, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 292-301.

	Sakamura, Ken (ed) IEEE MICRO Special Far East issue.
	Vol. 9, No. 3, June 1989.

I understand that our efforts to publicize the result of the TRON project
leave much to be desired.
Also detailed specifications are made available only after they
reach the final stage of design.
During the design phase, the members of the TRON associations are the ones
who discusses the pros and cons of the intermediate designs.
Since there are more than 100 companies including companies from the U.S.A.,
our efforts to disseminate the information are focused to the members
of the TRON Association.

I understand that there are many opinions as to the details of the
specifications. We already have a diversity of opinions from the TRON 
association memebers.

Let me just point out that the one of the major targets of the TRON project
is to standardize computer interfaces of the electronics appliances
that have much influence on our every day life.
I can't speak for U.S.A., but at least in Japan many home appliances have
built-in microprocessors and the trend to incoporate computers
will continue.
The power of microprocessors make home appliances to perform many 
fancy things, but some of these become too difficult for ordinary
men and women to use.

The best way to solve this problem is to let the computers
offer better human-machine interface.
Of course, we don't want to use additional separate computers, but
the built-in computers should support such interface.

Such interface must handle somewhat complex  operations other than simple
turning on/off switches.
Standardization of such interface is the only way to have a comprehensive
home automation that allow us to use many computer-controlled objects
in a harmonious way.

Regarding the large number of wires in the
TRON house reported in a segment of CNN program,
I should mention that the TRON house reported is an experimental one and
we intentionally incoporated many wires that should have been invisible.
(We will use better technology to route sensor signals, and other control
signals in real TRON houses in the future.)
That is why there are so many visible wires today in the TRON house.
It is certainly shocking, isn't it?

By the way, the enhanced capability of the home appliances and
houses are not meant to improve the conditions of
people in general only.
We have already paid close attention to the way these
computer controlled objects may help the handicapped and the old.
Such considerations are very important when the birth rate
in industrialized countries have begun dropping.

My guess is that the first encounter of many people in U.S.A with
the products based on the TRON specification will be in the home
of computer-controlled home appliances.

Regards,

Ken Sakamura.