home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!indyvax.iupui.edu!imhw400
- From: imhw400@indyvax.iupui.edu
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Subject: Re: openVMS or UNIX.
- Message-ID: <1992Dec23.083502.195@indyvax.iupui.edu>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 08:35:02 -0500
- References: <1992Dec16.084621.25138@unix.brighton.ac.uk> <16DEC199219130792@spades.aces.com>,<1992Dec23.005104.8248@brt.deakin.edu.au> <1h9kd2INN1c9@gap.caltech.edu>
- Distribution: world
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1h9kd2INN1c9@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
- > An "open"
- > system means that all the interfaces are well-publicised so that others can
- > write code that uses the interfaces. Once you've done that, it's nonsense to
- > talk about the interface as "proprietary."
-
- Ah, another definition to add to the pile. One reason that I try never to use
- the term "open system" is that it has no commonly-accepted definition;
- everybody thinks he knows what it is, and everybody defines it differently.
- (For example, when talking to AT&T/USL people, it obviously means "Unix(TM)",
- and when talking to upper management, it is a synonym for either "good" or
- "politically correct" (depending on whether the manager feels secure or not).)
-
- Carl, your definition is one of the more useful ones. I just wish that we
- had all agreed on what an "open system" is before announcing that we sell them
- or that we're going to buy nothing else. As it is, "open" is like "new and
- improved": it looks great on the label but may not be worth much.
- --
- Mark H. Wood, Lead Analyst/Programmer +1 317 274 0749 [@disclaimer@]
- Internet: IMHW400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU BITNET: IMHW400@INDYVAX
- Celebrate freedom: read a banned newsgroup.
-