🚀 go-pugleaf

Evan Leibovitch wrote

> WHERE ARE YOU GUYS?
> 
> Why isn't Novell talking up UnixWare to the VARs and resellers it needs
> to recommend its solutions to end-users? Why aren't SCO or Sunsoft talking
> at all? Are you all willing to lie down and let the MS-HYPE steamroll
> over you?
> 
> Forget the Linux-versus-SCO-versus-UnixWare-versus-Solaris tripe. PC-Unix
> vendors appear to be dropping on the ball on the <any-Unix>-versus-Microsoft
> hype game, exactly at a point where you can meet the challenge head on in
> front of your own customers (and potential customers).
> 
> Is it arrogance? gun-shyness? un-preparedness? Or just ignorance?
> Does it matter which?
> 

Unfortunately this represents the 'state' of the UnIX market. No one's leading. 
Heck, Dallas had a dedicated UNIX reseller show and no one came either. The 
current trend towards refragmentation of UNIX is distinctly worrying to this 
long time UNIX fan. What I suspect is that the major UNIX vendors have tapped 
out the pool of available new UNIX VARs so these shows have little return (they 
are pretty costly to participate in) in terms of signing new VARs. I say I 
suspect this because I have no proof. At Forum next week I'll see if this 
hypothesis might hold water. 

Paul Rickett
VARKETING!

In article <Cuqy4r.6B9@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

[ ... ]

] I was treated to 50 minutes worth of non-stop Unix-bashing at the NEC
] seminar, listening to the justification of why the company made a system
] based on a MIPS CPU that won't run *anything* but NT. With no present or
] future plans for a Unix port, (Irix may run, but NEC *absolutely* refuses
] to support it) NEC says with full confidence that NT makes Unix
] unnecessary on medium-horsepower systems.

NEC Absolutely refuses to part with documentation without non-disclosure.
They have been asked on 3 seperate occasions by 3 different FreeBSD core
team members (one might not have been core) and 2 occasions by 2
different NetBSD team members, and have refused each time.  This is
5 seperate requests -- that I personally know of.

NEC does not (and *will not*, I predict) constitute enough of a market
for ANY commercial UNIX vendor to port.  The chip they are using is
already outdated.

Without a free UNIX clone, probably BSD (Linux has many Intel dependencies,
which could, I suppose, be resolved in time), NEC has no chance of having
a UNIX running on it any time soon.  I suspect that a commercial vendor
would face similar *active opposition* by NEC (I have my sources for this).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

In article <331a4c$ors@u.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:

>] I was treated to 50 minutes worth of non-stop Unix-bashing at the NEC
>] seminar, listening to the justification of why the company made a system
>] based on a MIPS CPU that won't run *anything* but NT.

>NEC does not (and *will not*, I predict) constitute enough of a market
>for ANY commercial UNIX vendor to port.  The chip they are using is
>already outdated.

The sales droid at thew show was crowing that the MIPS chip on which the
NEC box was based, was the only officially supported Microsoft platform
besides Intel (suggesting that DEC's Alpha NT was off in never-never-land).

Considering that NEC has become (of necessity, I suppose) a booster (and
maybe lap-dog) of Microsoft, it's little wonder that they may have used
the CPU that Micosoft told them to, not the best one for the job.

>Without a free UNIX clone, probably BSD (Linux has many Intel dependencies,
>which could, I suppose, be resolved in time), NEC has no chance of having
>a UNIX running on it any time soon. I suspect that a commercial vendor
>would face similar *active opposition* by NEC (I have my sources for this).

That's exactly the point. NEC has *actively* resisted *any* attempts to
put a Unix on it, free or otherwise. The description of the box suggests
that SGI software might be made to run, but I got the distinct
impression that NEC made its systems just enough different from
Indigo/Indy systems as not capable of running their software.

The rejection of even the ability to run a Unix, even one provided by
third parties offering to do the port, suggests to me that NEC is totally
in Microsoft's pocket on this project.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504
          PCMCIA:  People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

In article <3319u2$fmc@wolfe.wimsey.com> paulr@wimsey.com writes:

>Unfortunately this represents the 'state' of the UnIX market. No one's leading.
>Heck, Dallas had a dedicated UNIX reseller show and no one came either. The 
>current trend towards refragmentation of UNIX is distinctly worrying to this
>long time UNIX fan.

Wanna talk fragmentation? Why are there three Unix shows?

That Unix reseller show is one of the stupider ideas I'd heard in a while.
Travel budgets are already strained, most people can't afford to go to
three shows a year. Most only go to one, Unix Expo or Uniforum,
depending on what coast they're closer to. 

Special VAR conferences at Uniforum or Unix Expo, I could see as a
benefit. Separate show? They're out of their minds.

The only reason I went to Softeach was because *they* came to *me*.
Considering how many locations it'll be run in, most VARs will have no
travel budget outside commuting expenses.

>I suspect is that the major UNIX vendors have tapped
>out the pool of available new UNIX VARs

"tapped out" is IMO a euphamism for "giving up". There is still
potential.

>so these shows have little return (they 
>are pretty costly to participate in)

Aw, fercrissake, if small fish like Bytelink (tiny Canadian firm selling
intelligent printer switches) could afford it, so could the Unix players.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / evan@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504
          PCMCIA:  People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:
>Without a free UNIX clone, probably BSD (Linux has many Intel dependencies,
>which could, I suppose, be resolved in time), NEC has no chance of having

Actually, there was an announcement to comp.os.linux.announce about a
week ago of a project to port Linux to an R4600 board.  I've no idea
who made the board though, and given what you've said about NEC,
I'd tend to doubt it's theirs.

--
____
\bi/  Ian McCloghrie      | FLUG:  FurryMUCK Linux User's Group
 \/   email: ian@ucsd.edu | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club
GCS (!)d-(--) p c++ l++(+++) u+ e- m+ s+/+ n+(-) h- f+ !g w+ t+ r y*

The above represents my personal opinions and not necessarily those
of my employer, Qualcomm Inc.

terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:

>In article <Cuqy4r.6B9@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>[ ... ]

>] I was treated to 50 minutes worth of non-stop Unix-bashing at the NEC
>] seminar, listening to the justification of why the company made a system
>] based on a MIPS CPU that won't run *anything* but NT. With no present or
>] future plans for a Unix port, (Irix may run, but NEC *absolutely* refuses
>] to support it) NEC says with full confidence that NT makes Unix
>] unnecessary on medium-horsepower systems.

>NEC Absolutely refuses to part with documentation without non-disclosure.
>They have been asked on 3 seperate occasions by 3 different FreeBSD core
>team members (one might not have been core) and 2 occasions by 2
>different NetBSD team members, and have refused each time.  This is
>5 seperate requests -- that I personally know of.

>NEC does not (and *will not*, I predict) constitute enough of a market
>for ANY commercial UNIX vendor to port.  The chip they are using is
>already outdated.

>Without a free UNIX clone, probably BSD (Linux has many Intel dependencies,
>which could, I suppose, be resolved in time), NEC has no chance of having
>a UNIX running on it any time soon.  I suspect that a commercial vendor
>would face similar *active opposition* by NEC (I have my sources for this).

Hmm.  NEC makes a pretty nice line of UNIX workstations (EWS) and
servers (UP) with MIPS chips in 'em.  They have done substantial UNIX
work, lots of it by NEC System Labs in Princeton, the rest in Japan.  I
think they did the SVR4.2 Reference Port for USL.  However, they've
basically made a marketing decision to sell this technology only in the
Far East.  The NT machine they're vending is truly UNIX-only, and uses
a funky support chip which lets them do dynamic bus sizing.  This
support chip is little-endian only and has some other features that
make in UNIX-unfriendly.  It should not be impossible, but it would
have to be little-endian.  NOTE:  the info on what chip is used is
_not_ from NEC, and may be wrong.  The _previous_ iteration of the NEC
NT machine was simply a relabeled MIPS Magnum 4000 system, it was
byte-order switchable and would run MIPS's UNIX (RISC/os).  I'll make
one broad statement: anyone who says IRIX "may run" is dead wrong,
there's no chance.  And SGI wouldn't sell you the code to try it
if you drove up a truck full of money.

Hint: if you care about UNIX in Japan, you don't ignore NEC.  If
you don't care about Japan and the Far East, they're not much of
a presence.

Other Hint: NEC is a VERY large company, and most people don't know
what other parts of the company are doing.  NEC people tell me this.
Maybe if one of the rejected requestors actually found the right person
to talk to....although who that might be is probably impossible to
determine for us outsiders.

-- mats

-- 
Mats Wichmann
Software Consultant
mats@netcom.com

Mats Wichmann (mats@netcom.com) wrote:

: Hmm.  NEC makes a pretty nice line of UNIX workstations (EWS) and
: servers (UP) with MIPS chips in 'em.  They have done substantial UNIX
: work, lots of it by NEC System Labs in Princeton, the rest in Japan.  I
: think they did the SVR4.2 Reference Port for USL.  However, they've
: basically made a marketing decision to sell this technology only in the
: Far East.

You mean the network technology they withdrew from the SVR4.2 port?

---Bob

-- 
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| palowoda@fiver.sns.com     | Fiver Enterpises Inc        |
| bob.palowoda@eng.sun.com   | x86 Solaris 2.4             | 
| palowoda@netcom.com        | Development and Integration |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+