Open Software Or Open Warfare?

The baffling battle over Unix: Why would IBM team up with its arch rivals? Is its software consortium bluffing AT&T? Unix. After years of learning incompatible sets of commands and rewriting programs for each new computer, scientists thought they saw relief on the way. Computer workstations of all stripes run Unix. Cray-2 supercomputers run Unix. Even Apple Computer has introduced a version of the AT&T Bell Labs-developed system for its Macintosh II. Hosanna? Not yet. In the middie of May, seven computer companies, including IBM, Digital Equipment, and Hewlett-Packard. caused consternation among computer-using scientists everywhere when they announced that they were forming an international consortium to develop a better, faster, more capable version of Unix. The Open Software Foundation, they called the multicorporate effort. Never fear, they cried; their software would be fully compatible with Unix, while offering features Unix now lacks— a better user interface, for instance, parallel processing, and supercomputer capability. Better yet, their operating system, scheduled to be on the market in 18 months, would be available to all hardware manufacturers and users, rather than being owned by a single company—one that happens to be OSF’s largest competitor. Predictably, AT&T struck back. Standing to lose control over the development of Unix and therefore some portion of the future revenue it might get from enhancing Unix, the behemoth fired off a statement from computer group president Robert Kavner “We have worked too hard in the cause of furthering open systems to leave the future of open computing platforms to a consortium composed of members with conflicting motives.” The consortium partners have been careful not to respond in kind. “If AT&T were to call us right now and ask to join, we would love to have them join us,” says OSF spokesman Gary McCormack. Besides, members of the the group add, if OSF improved on Unix, more people would buy the software, thus giving AT&T a smaller slice of a very much larger pie. And so, rationales follow charges, none shedding light on the central questions, heard in corridors wherever science and engineering colloquia take place these days: Why is IBM, master of the proprietary sell, teaming up with companies like Digital, Apollo, and Hewlett-Packard? Could it be just an elaborate bluff to get AT&T to behave better? In a series of interviews, The Scientist has uncovered many of the motivations and strategies leading up to OSF’s startling announcement. The trail begins with an almost industry wide dissatisfaction with AT&T. Forest Baskett, vice president for research and development at Silicon Graphics, a high-powered workstation maker, told The Scientist that, as big companies focused on Unix, AT&T began to impose “onerous” licensing terms on the hardware companies that tried to adapt it to their systems. Says Baskett “Their attitude was, ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.’ Baskett and other members of the industry even charge AT&T with manipulating the market by insisting on control of licensees’ product schedules and on the right to halt their product shipments if systems did not meet AT&T tests. So it comes as no surprise to some scientists that OSF would try, as Baskett puts it, “to wrest control of Unix away from AT&T.” And then there’s the Sun factor While some industry scientists are clearly upset over what they perceived as AT&T’s proprietary efforts, most see the telecommunications giant as a bit player in the hardware market. Who really worries them, who makes them downright apoplectic, is AT&T’s partner, Sun Microsystems, a six-year-old workstation maker whose 1988 sales may near a billion dollars—close to half the market. The two companies began working together on Unix in 1986. Industry fears were increased this January when AT&T announced an agreement to buy up to 20% of Sun for $300 million and also announced that Sun would be doing much of the work for an upgraded version of Unix—System V release 4. In return, Sun figured to get jump on the market for machines that use it. For one thing, it would have the source code six months before anyone for another, it could influence the software to favor its own system. Then, opponents charged, it could corner hardware market. And indeed, when Sun announced that the new release would be tailored for its new “Sparc” central processor and that it would “control the future of Unix,” it added fuel to the industry’s fears. “Some of us got a little arrogant,” admits Sun’s Bill Woe. It came as no surprise, then, that Apollo, DEC, and HP began to negotiate with AT&T, first individually, then as a group, in an attempt to convince the company not to give source code to Sun before. everyone got it. But AT&T would have none of this. Said one member of the “software seven,” AT&T behaved like Ernestine, co-medienne Lily Tomlin’s phone company character who says, “We don’t care, we don’t have to.” Apollo marketing manager Barbara Shelhoss puts it simply: “Our negotiations with AT&T produced no results. AT&T showed no interest in negotiating either a compromise to the licensing terms or a compromise in [its] plans for System V release 4 and 5.” When diplomacy failed, open warfare began. OSF was formed to challenge AT&T on its own turf. The software seven pledged $100 million to be spent over three years, the goal being to produce the first product in 18 months. Does OSF really mean it? Or is this a warning shot across AT&T’s bow, as some have wondered? AT&T would have one believe that OSF is an elaborate charade. According to this conspiracy theory, OSF founders are attempting to sow so much confusion that no one will buy Unix until the dust settles. And until then, everyone will keep buying systems from IBM, DEC, and the other OSF companies. When asked about this theory, OSF members just laugh. “It’s too late for us to back down,” says Digital’s Unix leader Jim McGinness. All of the industry observers queried by The Scientist accepted this claim, pointing out that $100 million is a lot to spend on a diversion. In addition, some very bright stars from the sponsors are helping start OSF and may become permanent employees; they include research manager Ira Goldstein from HP, strategic relations vice president Henry Crouse, Alex Morrow from IBM, and John Paul from Nixdorf Computer AG. In fact, some OSF members expect Sun to jump aboard. “From talking to as many Sun people as I’ve talked to, I fully expect Sun to join,” says Digital’s McGinness. Of course, that’s not Sun’s official line. Says Greg Xenakis, a Sun spokesman, “We’re evaluating joining, but we’re certainly not leaning in that direction.” But even with real dedication, will OSF produce useful software within the 18-month deadline for its first release? At a June 22 meeting in San Francisco—the first opportunity for members of the user and developer community to quiz OSF—development chief John Paul said that detailed software specifications and sections of source code would be available, possibly by late summer. How good will those specifications and that code be? Gordon Bell, the National Science Foundation’s former computer chief, told The Scientist he fears the product will lose out in a battle of “incompetence versus arrogance.” On the one hand, according to critic Bell, AT&T and Sun aren’t moving fast enough on the real improvements Unix needs. “Even answering (electronic) mail is a pain in the ass,” Bell remarked of the Unix workstation he uses now. But Bell says the seven aren’t exactly powerhouses in those areas either. One university source, who declined to be named believes that OSF will make contributions in the research that the foundation plans to conduct. HP’s Goldstein will head a research institute set up by the foundation, with about $10 million to spend at universities next year alone. Goldstein said that he hopes to use matching funds from corporate sponsors or government agencies to make OSF’s research budget the equivalent of $70 million to $80 million. Among the research targets: network software to make information and computing resources truly accessible, parallel computing tools, and work on fault tolerance, so that “machine diseases”—malign or accidental computer bugs—do not ravage the universal networks of the 1990s. But pitfalls remain. OSF has yet to assemble its full-time staff. When it does produce its software (based on parts of a future release of IBM’s Unix variant, AIX), its use will still require a Unix license from AT&T. And here, AT&T could strike back making licensing agreements so messy and convoluted that it wouldn’t make sense to buy OSF’s product. But Silicon Graphic’s Baskett thinks that the overall effect will be salutary. Either AT&T will become more reasonable, or OSF will take over as keeper of the Unix standard (under some other name to avoid trademark litigation, of course). Which it will be is up for grabs, Baskett said, although “I’m not holding my breath waiting for AT&T to change.” In the short term, users will see no effect “It just makes for good journalism,” he quipped. Paul Wallich is a science writer based in New York City.

Open Software Or Open Warfare?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of