🚀 go-pugleaf

	I guess this is a toughie, but I'd prefer to see Open Systems Today
propose a definition of "Open Systems" that we can all live with an
that actually has some meaning *before* we engage in a jolly round of
flamage about who is more "Open".

	What *IS* an "Open System"??
	----------------------------
Is it?
	Volume and functionality:		DOS/windows
Is it?
	Cheap:					DOS/windows
Is it?
	Free source code:			Linux and whatnot
Is it?
	Licenseable source code:		Anything, *IF* you have the $$
Is it?
	POSIX compliance:			Loads of things
Is it?
	UNIX:					which? UNIX(R) is a trademark..
Is it?
	Runs on a huge range of platforms:	POSIX?
Is it?
	A marketing buzzword:			Ask "Open Systems Today"?
Is it?
	A checklist item for an RFP		Everything is "Open"



	I've heard EVERY SINGLE ONE of those categories of "definitions"
used, and not in fun. If you ask which vendor has the greatest commitment
to the above, then you're an idiot or worse.

	A survey question such as this makes me really wonder if the
folks at "Open Systems Today" know what they're "Today" about. It is
a given that any vendor's answer to "Who is most committed" is "MEMEME!!"
It is a likelihood that any user's answer is going to be "whatever I like"
because "Open" here is almost synoymous with "is good", it's such a
broad brush. Just pretend it's an election year and you're asking a
bunch of pols "Who is most *MORAL*?" - yep, you're gonna get a really
meaningful response.

	Why don't you guys argue about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin, or something that someone can say something intelligible
about.



mjr. - Who personally, deeply, truly, utterly is committed to "Open Systems"
I believe computers should have lots of nice ventilation holes in them, but
not too many.