16 Mar
2017
16 Mar
'17
10:08 a.m.
Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, this is quite interesting, but I had different
impression of the
definition of "open" at the time: it seemed like what people were saying
when they said that Unix was "open" was much less about the source code,
but rather about the interfaces and APIs;
Yes!!!! Portability of application code was a big issue, and the option
to avoid vendor lock-iin.
In other words, the "openness" in "open
systems" wasn't about code *for the
system itself*; it was about freedom from software lock-in to a particular
hardware vendor. Or, perhaps, openness to multiple system vendors
supporting the same customer-written code.
You've hit the nail very much on the head.
This did come as a result of the "openness" that Clem is describing:
since people knew how "UNIX" (as a concept) worked, it was possible to
transfer both your source code, and your peoples' how-to-use-it knowledge
from one vendor to another. This caused vendors to start competing
more on price / performance.
Arnold