anyone know if this is true?

anyone know if this is true?

[Larry McVoy]

If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
To:      lm@sgi.com
Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II

Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
part of the std 6.2 release.

    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
    Subject: gcc part II
    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
    Organization: IAVC
    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4

    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.

    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?

    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
    other UNIX platform here].

    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...

    pissed off with no build capability,
    jon

    --------------------------------------------------------
    Jon Rust
    Internet Access of Ventura County
    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500

I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
fixed than the library/header problem.

Michael

------- End of Forwarded Message

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

Sadly, it *is* true.  I guess many more 6.2 pissed off customers
are waiting down the pipeline.

We can solve it by getting David Miller's development environment
packaged as freeware, (it includes a GNU linker that works)
and put it (really quick) outside the firewall for whoever
is interested.

	1) Someone with a couple of days of time needs to take this
	   and just do it. I was planning on it, but I need
	   another week or so to start.

	2) I'm afraid we'll need to add crt[1n].o as binaries
	   as these are *not* shipped with the headers and libraries
	   of 6.2

Any comments, objections from anyone (especially for step 2) ?


>
>If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
>facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
>From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
>To:      lm@sgi.com
>Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II
>
>Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
>it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
>part of the std 6.2 release.
>
>    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
>    Subject: gcc part II
>    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
>    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
>    Organization: IAVC
>    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
>!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
>X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4
>
>    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.
>
>    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
>    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?
>
>    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
>    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
>    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
>    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
>    other UNIX platform here].
>
>    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
>    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...
>
>    pissed off with no build capability,
>    jon
>
>    --------------------------------------------------------
>    Jon Rust
>    Internet Access of Ventura County
>    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500
>
>I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
>fixed than the library/header problem.
>
>Michael
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

Sadly, it *is* true.  I guess many more 6.2 pissed off customers
are waiting down the pipeline.

We can solve it by getting David Miller's development environment
packaged as freeware, (it includes a GNU linker that works)
and put it (really quick) outside the firewall for whoever
is interested.

	1) Someone with a couple of days of time needs to take this
	   and just do it. I was planning on it, but I need
	   another week or so to start.

	2) I'm afraid we'll need to add crt[1n].o as binaries
	   as these are *not* shipped with the headers and libraries
	   of 6.2

Any comments, objections from anyone (especially for step 2) ?


>
>If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
>facts.  Sounds like we're getting bad press.
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>Date:    Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
>From:    Michael Tiemann <tiemann@cygnus.com>
>To:      lm@sgi.com
>Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II
>
>Is this not fixed in 6.2?  I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
>it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
>part of the std 6.2 release.
>
>    From: jon@vcnet.com (Jon Rust)
>    Subject: gcc part II
>    Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.apps
>    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
>    Organization: IAVC
>    Path: cygnus.com!kithrup.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.reston.ans.net
>!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.vcnet.com!jon.vc.net!user
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <jon-1706962225340001@jon.vc.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jon.vc.net
>X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4
>
>    Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.
>
>    You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
>    SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?
>
>    **If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
>    chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
>    I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
>    days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
>    other UNIX platform here].
>
>    If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
>    gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...
>
>    pissed off with no build capability,
>    jon
>
>    --------------------------------------------------------
>    Jon Rust
>    Internet Access of Ventura County
>    jon@vc.net        http://www.vc.net         805.383.3500
>
>I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
>fixed than the library/header problem.
>
>Michael
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>


-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Dave Olson]

It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.

That's just the *BASE* header files.

Dave Olson, Silicon Graphics   Guru and busybody at large
http://reality.sgi.com/olson   olson@sgi.com

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Donna Yobs]

You do get the basics with eoe:

versions long eoe.hdr.lib

shows what hdrs are on basic irix
versions long eoe.hdr.lib|wc
           283          1415         17711


both are default:
eoe.hdr.lib [d]
compiler_eoe.hdr.lib [d]



-- 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Donna Derby Yobs        Silicon Graphics -  NSD         yobs@engr.sgi.com
			 Product Marketing

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

>
>It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
>
Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.

I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
/usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

David Miller has a heavily patched working GNU linker that creates
Linux elf-32 binaries. He told me that it should be easy to
make it produce native IRIX binaries. As for the crt[1n].o files
I really hope they are not a problem to give away.

>That's just the *BASE* header files.
>
This is correct. From the point of view of the original complaint
Is not enough.

-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Ariel Faigon]

>
>It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
>
Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.

I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
/usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

David Miller has a heavily patched working GNU linker that creates
Linux elf-32 binaries. He told me that it should be easy to
make it produce native IRIX binaries. As for the crt[1n].o files
I really hope they are not a problem to give away.

>That's just the *BASE* header files.
>
This is correct. From the point of view of the original complaint
Is not enough.

-- 
Peace, Ariel

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Michael Tiemann]

Hey Ariel, good to hear from you!

It sounds to me like (1) SGI intended to make GCC a viable freeware
option for Irix 6.2, (2) the support in 6.2 is not quite right, due to
slight technical problems.  If I understand this correctly, then I think
it won't be too hard to fix the PR-related issues, and I'll be happy to
chime in our support for the intended solution (whatever it may be).

If SGI isn't committing to supplying a reasonable foundation to GNU (w/o
ProDev or IDO), then that's another story.

Michael

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[Michael Tiemann]

Hey Ariel, good to hear from you!

It sounds to me like (1) SGI intended to make GCC a viable freeware
option for Irix 6.2, (2) the support in 6.2 is not quite right, due to
slight technical problems.  If I understand this correctly, then I think
it won't be too hard to fix the PR-related issues, and I'll be happy to
chime in our support for the intended solution (whatever it may be).

If SGI isn't committing to supplying a reasonable foundation to GNU (w/o
ProDev or IDO), then that's another story.

Michael

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[William J. Earl]

Ariel Faigon writes:
 > >
 > >It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
 > >
 > Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
 > Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
 > subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.
 > 
 > I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
 > they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
 > any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
 > /usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

     Those files are included only in dev.sw.lib, not in irix.sw.irix_lib.
I agree that they should be in the latter.  

     ld is shipped in compiler_eoe.sw.lboot, but it is located under
/usr/cpu/sysgen/root/usr/bin/.  

Re: anyone know if this is true?

[William J. Earl]

Ariel Faigon writes:
 > >
 > >It's not true.  All he has to do is install eoe.hdrs and compiler_eoe.hdrs.
 > >
 > Dave, I'm afraid you're misinformed. The problem is real.
 > Customers cannot build anything on 6.2 even if the install the above
 > subsystems, unless they buy our IDO.
 > 
 > I said it many times, to be able to build anything on 6.2
 > they still miss a linker (the GNU linker is not supported in
 > any official GNU or Cygnus releases on any SGI and we don't include 
 > /usr/lib/crt[1n].o with our headers and libraries)

     Those files are included only in dev.sw.lib, not in irix.sw.irix_lib.
I agree that they should be in the latter.  

     ld is shipped in compiler_eoe.sw.lboot, but it is located under
/usr/cpu/sysgen/root/usr/bin/.  

FYI - free Windows API

[Larry McVoy]

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:59:17 -0700
From:    gordoni@base.com (Gordon Irlam)
To:      achut@eng.sun.com, bruce_horton@hotmail.com, hsu@freebsd.org,
	 corbin@eng.sun.com, gnu@toad.com, lm@sgi.com, willey@purdue.edu,
	 kr@base.com, lpd@aladdin.com, rlm@transmeta.com, deraadt@theos.com,
	 tclayton@eng.sun.com
cc:      FoRK@pest.w3.org
Subject: Willows places Windows API under GNU (Library) GPL

Below is my boring corporatized summary of this.

My uncorporatized analysis is simpler, and reads:

    Fuckin cool!  -  http://www.willows.com/



                                                gordon

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Willows Software has decided to make the sources to their
Windows API technology freely available under the GNU Library GPL.

This is very significant.

Willows technology sounds has a long way to go before it catches
up to Microsoft, but much like the capacity of Linux to overtake
the existing Unix vendors, this possibility shouldn't be ruled
out.  A Linux magnitude net effort to create a free replacement
to Windows could certainly put a bound on Microsoft's ability to
increase the price it starts charging for it's operating systems
now that it thinks it has secured a monopoly.

While this technology is not perfect, it is probably the best
non-Microsoft licensed Windows API technology that presently exists
(alternatives being Wabi from Sun, and Wine written by Bob Amstead
and friends, freely available on the net).  Other technologies, such
as from Bristol, use code licensed by Microsoft.

Willows Software comprises both a set of Windows API compatible libraries
that presently run on top of Unix and Mac, and also an x86 machine code
simulator for running existing x86 binaries.  The option to simply
compile to native code on the appropriate processor also exists.
Only the Win16 API presently appears mature, and a lot of work is still
required to complete the Win32 APIs.  According to an earlier press
release, a lot of work will also be required to implement OLE.

Willows Software is a part of the Canopy Group which is a group of
companies owned by NFT Ventures.  NFT Ventures is run by Ray Norda.
I believe NFT stands for Norda Family Trust.  Another member of the
Canopy Group is Caldera, one of the leading Linux companies.  According
to the Canopy Group's own web site the mission of the Canopy Group is:

    "to enhance and support Novell's products with aggressive strategies
    and technologies"

This suprizes me given that Ray Norda is no longer involved with
Novell (I even checked recent SEC filings by Novell to confirm this).
I don't really understand the relationship between Novell and Willow,
nor whether Eric Schmidt's presence at Novell might also have played
a part in the decision to free the Willows Windows API (Schmidt is
one of the few senior people in the industry that appears to understand
the economic forces associated with free software).

See http://www.willows.com/ for further details, or to download the
complete sources.

A previous article on Willows follows.

                                                    gordon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      January 1996 article reporting plans by Willows to make the
      sources to their software freely available on the net, but
      to continue to charge money for it's commercial use.  (The
      new license that was just announced is royalty free)...

Subject: A not-quite-free Windows clone...
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:25:15 -0800 (PST)

>From Unigram...

NOORDA's WILLOWS TO PUT ITS WINDOWS-ON-UNIX SOURCE ON TO NET

Fresh from its victory over Microsoft Corp last month at 
ECMA, the European Computer Manufacturers Association (UX No 
569), the tiny Ray Noorda-financed start-up Willows Software 
has changed gears, plowing ahead with a move that is bound 
to irk the mighty Redmond empire. This week it'll detail a 
plan to distribute the source code to its ersatz Win32s 
operating environment, described as a subset of Windows 95, 
free on the Internet. It will also make its anticipated 
software development kit, the Twin Cross Platform Developers 
Kit (XPDK), similarly available for personal use. Noorda 
himself will brief the press. The source code will allow 
users of any flavour of Unix - followed in turn by Apple 
Macintosh, Novell NetWare and ultimately IBM OS/2 users - to 
run Windows binaries, particularly Microsoft's own highly 
popular Word, Excel and PowerPoint programs, on their 
systems. They will not have to pay any operating systems 
"taxes" to Microsoft. 

Saratoga, California-based Willows claims the move will 
create something of a paradigm shift - at least within the 
narrow confines of Unix - and spell the end of Sun 
Microsystems Inc's like-minded but limited product, Wabi, as 
well as Motif. Officially, Wabi only runs two dozen of the 
thousands of Windows programs available and to run some of 
them, like PowerPoint, requires the real Windows underneath, 
defeating one of Sun's purposes - to wit, depriving 
Microsoft of its revenue stream. Willows chief Rob Farnum 
says he will spend the next few weeks lobbying Wabi's 
greatest adherents, Sun and IBM, to abandon Wabi and license 
the Willows solution on favourable terms. He has utter 
confidence such an appeal will succeed and make Willows 
money. (Sun and IBM Corp did after all sit on the ECMA 
technical committee TC37 with Willows pushing the technology 
as a standard.) Farnum never wanted to distribute the source 
code, he says, because Willows doesn't have the financial 
wherewithal to support it. The decision to do it anyway was 
made over the holidays by Microsoft's old nemesis Ray Noorda 
and his henchmen. Farnum now believes that despite the fact 
the source code won't be supported it will attract tens of 
thousands of users. 

Outside interest in Willows technology, he said, has always 
focused almost exclusively on its ability to run binaries. 
It is unclear whether Noorda will also try to tie it in 
somehow with the Linux freeware-based Corsair Internet 
desktop his Caldera operation is pushing. Willows is also 
now willing to forego carving out what it estimates would be 
a modest little $10m business selling its XPDK toolkit to a 
couple of thousand Unix developers a year. Any real money to 
be made, it figures, lies in what it calls "professional 
services," porting applications for people with its 
technology or helping them port them. It intends to announce 
such a program this week. It also intends to announce 
licensing schemes whereby pieces of its technology can be 
bundled with third-party programs. 

Willows will support its technology when applied to 
commercial purposes and apparently charge modest licensing 
fees of $250 a platform despite the number of developers 
using it or run-times created. Farnum claims that when 
Willows this week announces the imminent arrival of its XPDK 
for the Mac - which like its NetWare kit is at the alpha 
stage - it will bring pressure to bear on Microsoft's new 
$1,600 Visual C++ tool for the platform. Still he remains 
diffident, or perhaps cautious, about Willows impact on 
Microsoft - at one point calling it "mouse nuts" - and 
Microsoft's reaction to Willows' moves. He apparently 
expects Microsoft to denigrate Willows technology out of a 
perceived loss of control, loss of revenue and threat to 
Win95. At the same time, he admits it would take Willows 50 
man-years just to catch up with Microsoft's OLE work which 
he knows he must emulate. Farnum leaves unarticulated or 
unadmitted - despite direct questions - Willows long-term 
purposes respecting Microsoft though perhaps he and Noorda 
now feel they will make more daunting foes by using the 
Internet to evolve their schemes. 

------- End of Forwarded Message

FYI - free Windows API

[Larry McVoy]

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:59:17 -0700
From:    gordoni@base.com (Gordon Irlam)
To:      achut@eng.sun.com, bruce_horton@hotmail.com, hsu@freebsd.org,
	 corbin@eng.sun.com, gnu@toad.com, lm@sgi.com, willey@purdue.edu,
	 kr@base.com, lpd@aladdin.com, rlm@transmeta.com, deraadt@theos.com,
	 tclayton@eng.sun.com
cc:      FoRK@pest.w3.org
Subject: Willows places Windows API under GNU (Library) GPL

Below is my boring corporatized summary of this.

My uncorporatized analysis is simpler, and reads:

    Fuckin cool!  -  http://www.willows.com/



                                                gordon

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Willows Software has decided to make the sources to their
Windows API technology freely available under the GNU Library GPL.

This is very significant.

Willows technology sounds has a long way to go before it catches
up to Microsoft, but much like the capacity of Linux to overtake
the existing Unix vendors, this possibility shouldn't be ruled
out.  A Linux magnitude net effort to create a free replacement
to Windows could certainly put a bound on Microsoft's ability to
increase the price it starts charging for it's operating systems
now that it thinks it has secured a monopoly.

While this technology is not perfect, it is probably the best
non-Microsoft licensed Windows API technology that presently exists
(alternatives being Wabi from Sun, and Wine written by Bob Amstead
and friends, freely available on the net).  Other technologies, such
as from Bristol, use code licensed by Microsoft.

Willows Software comprises both a set of Windows API compatible libraries
that presently run on top of Unix and Mac, and also an x86 machine code
simulator for running existing x86 binaries.  The option to simply
compile to native code on the appropriate processor also exists.
Only the Win16 API presently appears mature, and a lot of work is still
required to complete the Win32 APIs.  According to an earlier press
release, a lot of work will also be required to implement OLE.

Willows Software is a part of the Canopy Group which is a group of
companies owned by NFT Ventures.  NFT Ventures is run by Ray Norda.
I believe NFT stands for Norda Family Trust.  Another member of the
Canopy Group is Caldera, one of the leading Linux companies.  According
to the Canopy Group's own web site the mission of the Canopy Group is:

    "to enhance and support Novell's products with aggressive strategies
    and technologies"

This suprizes me given that Ray Norda is no longer involved with
Novell (I even checked recent SEC filings by Novell to confirm this).
I don't really understand the relationship between Novell and Willow,
nor whether Eric Schmidt's presence at Novell might also have played
a part in the decision to free the Willows Windows API (Schmidt is
one of the few senior people in the industry that appears to understand
the economic forces associated with free software).

See http://www.willows.com/ for further details, or to download the
complete sources.

A previous article on Willows follows.

                                                    gordon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      January 1996 article reporting plans by Willows to make the
      sources to their software freely available on the net, but
      to continue to charge money for it's commercial use.  (The
      new license that was just announced is royalty free)...

Subject: A not-quite-free Windows clone...
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:25:15 -0800 (PST)

From Unigram...

NOORDA's WILLOWS TO PUT ITS WINDOWS-ON-UNIX SOURCE ON TO NET

Fresh from its victory over Microsoft Corp last month at 
ECMA, the European Computer Manufacturers Association (UX No 
569), the tiny Ray Noorda-financed start-up Willows Software 
has changed gears, plowing ahead with a move that is bound 
to irk the mighty Redmond empire. This week it'll detail a 
plan to distribute the source code to its ersatz Win32s 
operating environment, described as a subset of Windows 95, 
free on the Internet. It will also make its anticipated 
software development kit, the Twin Cross Platform Developers 
Kit (XPDK), similarly available for personal use. Noorda 
himself will brief the press. The source code will allow 
users of any flavour of Unix - followed in turn by Apple 
Macintosh, Novell NetWare and ultimately IBM OS/2 users - to 
run Windows binaries, particularly Microsoft's own highly 
popular Word, Excel and PowerPoint programs, on their 
systems. They will not have to pay any operating systems 
"taxes" to Microsoft. 

Saratoga, California-based Willows claims the move will 
create something of a paradigm shift - at least within the 
narrow confines of Unix - and spell the end of Sun 
Microsystems Inc's like-minded but limited product, Wabi, as 
well as Motif. Officially, Wabi only runs two dozen of the 
thousands of Windows programs available and to run some of 
them, like PowerPoint, requires the real Windows underneath, 
defeating one of Sun's purposes - to wit, depriving 
Microsoft of its revenue stream. Willows chief Rob Farnum 
says he will spend the next few weeks lobbying Wabi's 
greatest adherents, Sun and IBM, to abandon Wabi and license 
the Willows solution on favourable terms. He has utter 
confidence such an appeal will succeed and make Willows 
money. (Sun and IBM Corp did after all sit on the ECMA 
technical committee TC37 with Willows pushing the technology 
as a standard.) Farnum never wanted to distribute the source 
code, he says, because Willows doesn't have the financial 
wherewithal to support it. The decision to do it anyway was 
made over the holidays by Microsoft's old nemesis Ray Noorda 
and his henchmen. Farnum now believes that despite the fact 
the source code won't be supported it will attract tens of 
thousands of users. 

Outside interest in Willows technology, he said, has always 
focused almost exclusively on its ability to run binaries. 
It is unclear whether Noorda will also try to tie it in 
somehow with the Linux freeware-based Corsair Internet 
desktop his Caldera operation is pushing. Willows is also 
now willing to forego carving out what it estimates would be 
a modest little $10m business selling its XPDK toolkit to a 
couple of thousand Unix developers a year. Any real money to 
be made, it figures, lies in what it calls "professional 
services," porting applications for people with its 
technology or helping them port them. It intends to announce 
such a program this week. It also intends to announce 
licensing schemes whereby pieces of its technology can be 
bundled with third-party programs. 

Willows will support its technology when applied to 
commercial purposes and apparently charge modest licensing 
fees of $250 a platform despite the number of developers 
using it or run-times created. Farnum claims that when 
Willows this week announces the imminent arrival of its XPDK 
for the Mac - which like its NetWare kit is at the alpha 
stage - it will bring pressure to bear on Microsoft's new 
$1,600 Visual C++ tool for the platform. Still he remains 
diffident, or perhaps cautious, about Willows impact on 
Microsoft - at one point calling it "mouse nuts" - and 
Microsoft's reaction to Willows' moves. He apparently 
expects Microsoft to denigrate Willows technology out of a 
perceived loss of control, loss of revenue and threat to 
Win95. At the same time, he admits it would take Willows 50 
man-years just to catch up with Microsoft's OLE work which 
he knows he must emulate. Farnum leaves unarticulated or 
unadmitted - despite direct questions - Willows long-term 
purposes respecting Microsoft though perhaps he and Noorda 
now feel they will make more daunting foes by using the 
Internet to evolve their schemes. 

------- End of Forwarded Message

Re: FYI - free Windows API

[richard offer]

* $ from lm@neteng at "18-Jun: 7:07pm" | sed "1,$s/^/* /"
*
[sniping]

* >From Unigram...
*
* NOORDA's WILLOWS TO PUT ITS WINDOWS-ON-UNIX SOURCE ON TO NET
*

[sniping again]

* Saratoga, California-based Willows claims the move will
* create something of a paradigm shift - at least within the
* narrow confines of Unix - and spell the end of Sun
* Microsystems Inc's like-minded but limited product, Wabi, as
* well as Motif.

Oh great, well thats me out of a job then :-(

Even a company the size of DEC couldn't persuade more than a handful of
companies to port their code to Alpha/NT, and this one-man-and-his-band will
succeed ?

[one last snip]

*
* ------- End of Forwarded Message
*


richard.

_____________________________________________________________________
  A guest signature from Jeff Drummond (jjd at cray.com) 

  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die.
  My name is Frankenstein.  I have no father.  Prepare to die.
  My name is Darth Vader.  I AM your father.  Prepare to die.
  My name is Freddie Kruger.  Your father killed me.  Prepare to die.
  My name is the Terminator.  Your yet-to-be-born son will kill me. 
     Prepare to die.
  Yo, I'm Rambo.  Somebody got killed.  Die.

Re: FYI - free Windows API

[David S. Miller]

   From: offer@sgi.com (richard offer)
   Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:29:36 -0700

    and this one-man-and-his-band will

let me tell you about this guy name Linus....
;-)