Yes, thanks Heinz, Jim Isaac is the name I was trying to remember.
The standards effort I was involved in was part of the now-forgotten (I
hope) GUI Wars, in which a bunch of workstation makers (I remember DEC, HP,
and IBM, among others) supporting an X Window System GUI toolkit called
Motif battled Sun and AT&T who pushed OpenLook. OpenLook was about 50 times
more elegant, but Motif won the day. It came from OSF, the Open Systems
Foundation, which was easily the most arrogant organization I ever dealt
with. I think they were disbanded as a result of a lawsuit involving
restraint of trade, or monopolistic behavior, or a cartel, or something
along those lines. (You could view the GUI Wars as East Coast vs. West
Coast and you might be right, except that AT&T joined the West Coast side.)
My role in all of this is that there was an IEEE effort to standardize a
GUI API based not on Motif or OpenLook, but on a cross-platform system that
I invented called XVT. The user manual, which I wrote, was the base
document. I think the Motif folks managed at one point to get their own
standards committee. I know that our effort fizzled. I don't know if there
ever was a Motif standard.
Motif, like X, was easily used by anyone who was an MIT CS grad student.
OpenLook might have been used by Sun Workstation programmers, but I don't
know if it ever appeared on any other system. My own system, XVT, wasn't so
great either and was very limited. But as a guy I worked with once at Bell
Labs on Cobol stuff said once about Cobol, "Hey, it put my kids through
college." XVT put my kids through college. (Yes, Bell Labs was programming
systems in Cobol. Those were the folks we built the Programmer's Workbench
for!)
While the GUI Wars were going on, Apple conquered the hearts and minds of
the intelligentsia, and Microsoft conquered the corporations and
government. (Progress in chips made workstations disappear as a distinct
species.) Neither Apple nor Microsoft gave a fig about Motif, OpenLook, X,
or any of that academic stuff.
Marc
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:35 PM Heinz Lycklama <heinz(a)osta.com> wrote:
The POSIX Standard for the UNIX System was actually
started under the umbrella of /usr/group, which was
comprised mostly of commercial companies and users
of the UNIX system. /usr/group was the forerunner
of UniForum. I chaired the /usr/group standard from
1981 to 1984, after which we turned the work over
to the IEEE, chaired by Jim Isaac and co-chaired by
myself. I worked for INTERACTIVE Systems Corp,
in Santa Monica, CA- the first commercial UNIX
company that provided for UNIX system software
on the DEC PDP11 and VAX computers, and led the
porting of the UNIX System to many different computer
architectures from micro to mainframe.
Heinz
On 6/26/2024 11:52 AM, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26th, 2024 at 11:43 AM, James
Johnston <
audioskeptic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> ANSI accredits US standards committees and delegates, both to US and
International Meetings.
> ANSI can vote to accept a standard. While I
don't know the issue behind
POSIX, it's entirely possible that ANSI
accredited IEEE to standardize
things. They have done this to many various groups for standards within
their wheelhouse. Sometimes this has worked well, sometimes it has worked
to the interest of some particular entity, speaking as someone who has
spent one to many days hanging out in standards meetings as a "technical
expert".
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:35 AM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> I think historically ANSI did languages.
>> But, I don't know specifically why IEEE became the standards body for
POSIX. I did participate for a while in the IEEE standards process (not
POSIX, but something else), and I knew it as a large, very active, well
managed organization, always eager to take on new things (such as the thing
that I was engaged in). So maybe that was one reason.
>>
>> Maybe a greater reason is that the part of IEEE standards that did
software was chaired by a person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm sure DEC
had a strong interest in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sure that
it didn't go completely wild and negate DEC's huge head start in selling
machines to run UNIX.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the
rationale
behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication of
UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as
X3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1.
Was there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI
instead? Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference in
publishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so the
track to an international standard seems to lead to the same organizations.
>
> - Matt G.
--
My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com
--
James D. (jj) Johnston
Chief Scientist, Immersion Networks
Well and that touches on one of the standards
that adds some interest to
this discussion: "An American National Standard
IEEE Standard Pascal
Computer Programming Language". In this case, ANSI/IEEE 770 X3.97 is the
Pascal standard as sponsored by both IEEE *and* ANSI. The lines can
certainly blur. Another example of a language standard under IEEE is 1076,
VHDL. Could it be interpreted as such:
IEEE is one institute among many that may originate the creation and
publication
of standards in the field of electrical engineering and
adjacent fields. ANSI, in turn, is a national general standards body that
publishes standards created by groups such as IEEE as well as those created
relatively independently by their own committees such as X3.
In other words you're liable to have IEEE standards that get tracked as
ANSI,
but the likelihood of ANSI cooking something up in their own
committees and then bouncing it out to IEEE is lower if present at all?
- Matt G.
P.S. If anyone wants a trial-use copy of POSIX, there's one sitting on
eBay
right now
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145798619385
--
*My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com <mrochkind(a)gmail.com>*