Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 4180 bsd
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:40:27 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <31759D8B.59F3653A@lambert.org>
References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com>
<yfgbuktfn1w.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <3172AF35.15A9D29E@wolfenet.com>
<31734160.1332595A@lambert.org> <84wx3f2k25.fsf@oberon.di.fc.ul.pt>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:21790 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:698 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3329 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3173 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17688 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46288
Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
] Terry> One big win would be a written ABI specification, a
] Terry> *publically available* test suite to make sure a system
] Terry> implements the ABI from revision to revision, and a mode
] Terry> switch for each compliant system to place it in "ABI ONLY
] Terry> mode" to determine application conformance to the ABI.
]
] A common ABI to free Unices. That would be great but...
]
] From a user point-of-view what is an operating system but the
] software that provides the ABI ?
Your point? 8-)
It's the license. It's the speed at which a particular application
runs in that ABI. It's how long the thing stays up. It's how
hard is it to install. It's if it loses data when you flip the
power switch. It's a lot of things.
Form an applications user's perspective, an OS is a boot-loader
for their application. Arguing from that perspective, you can't
compete until you can run the applications that other boot-loaders
can run: Word, Excel, Notes, etc.. That's coming, but it isn't
going to be a distinguishing factor between boot loaders.
] Having an agreed upon ABI would make the different kernels
] nothing but different algorithms of achieving the same OS.
Your point again? 8-).
] The next logical step would be to stop confusing the end
] user and calling one name to it, no matter what the particular
] set of kernel algorithms where in use.
Like calling it "cassette player" instead of Kenwood, or Clarion,
or Sony, or...?
That's an issue of branding, not capability.
] While in terms of "the desktop war" this would be a clear
] adavantage, personaly i don't believe the free Unix comunity
] would accept this.
Why not? Unlike the tradional UNIX vendor, who is selling a
proprietary hardware soloution, there is no vested benefit
to a free OS... it's not like they make more money from
having apps that only run on their "UNIX + extensions" instead
of someone elses.
] I agree with you that this is technicaly possible but i doubt
] that politicaly you can get there.
Again, why not? I hereby dub it the
Free
Application
Binary
Interface
Objective
project ...or Project FABIO, for short.
Donations of SVID/SVR4 ABI/EABI test suites for the TET/ETET
compliance testing framework gratefully accepted for cut-down
to limit them to public technology standards.
Commercial vendors: note that donation of a test suite would
go a long ways toward ensuring that your commercial implementation
would be FABIO compliant, since it's harder to fail a test suite
that already runs on your platform, even if it has been cut-down
to exclude all proprietary technologies that require a buy-in for
their use.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.