I agree that the term "open system" has been flagrantly misused, primarily to promote Unix systems at the expense of "proprietary" systems like z/os and Windows. I think the idea that Windows is open was put forward by Microsoft precisely to counter this pro-Unix marketing ploy. And IBM's response of course was MVS Open Edition, and later Linux.
One company I know used to define open systems in terms of the interoperability of programs, data, and people. Most Unix programs can be ported to other Unix flavours; in Unix a file is a file is a file; and if you are comfortable using one flavour of Unix you'll usually convert to a different flavour pretty quickly. But you can't move to someone else's Windows or z/OS, or rebuild Windows or z/OS for a different platform. So they're not "open". I suppose we should think of open hardware and open software separately. Anyone is allowed to build an "IBM-compatible" PC, but not an IBM-compatible mainframe. I guess anyone is also free to build an Intel x86-compatible processor (as AMD have done), or an AMD64-compatible processor (as Intel have done). But don't dare try to build a z/Archtiecture processor. Nigel On 18/1/07 06:26, "Timothy Sipples" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Chase writes: >> Indeed. Windows is about as "open" as the former Soviet Union. > > Amen. > > Re: "Anyone can build a hardware box to run Windows," well, yes, but you > must go to Intel or AMD for the chip. So you have a duopoly -- AMD argues > a monopoly -- on the component that matters. But software is far more > meaningful when talking about openness. I fail to see how anybody could > reasonably describe a Windows PC server as "open" and a System z running > Linux as not open. It's just plain deceptive. Same goes for HP-UX on > Itanium. > > FWIW, I think IBM still includes lots of TPF source code with that > operating system. And mainframe Linux is 100% open source. Most X86-based > Linux distributions include closed source device drivers. > > Words ought to mean something, and I wish the (primarily UNIX) marketers > hadn't stolen the word "open." I think it's time to take the word back > from the marketers and return it to the English language. I use the term > "distributed server" since that's the most neutral-but-descriptive term I > know. Maybe there's a better term. > > - - - - - > Timothy Sipples > IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect > Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z > Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
