3 ms·
> "And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it." I'd suggest that was due to the anti-trust case against Bell more than anything else. For e
by ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "And yet it didn't work out well for the company that funded it."
I'd suggest that was due to the anti-trust case against Bell more than anything else. For example, I believe AT&T were forbidden from selling Unix direct to consumers for many years, leading them to licence Unix to other entities (in the business and academic worlds).
- pjmlp 10y agoWhich is why UNIX got widespread in first place. I very much doubt it would have been adopted in such scale, specially for the then startups trying to start a workstation market, if Bell could sell it at the same prices other OSes were being sold.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoPossibly, possibly not. Consider the competition Unix had at the time it was released. A cut down version could've also made inroads into the desktop market (for business users).
- pjmlp 10y agoIf it would be priced at the same level of VMS or mainframe OSes, I am not sure. Plus maybe the Xerox PARC attempts would been more successful if there weren't a cheaper UNIX workstation as alternative, in spite how they managed the whole process.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago> "If it would be priced at the same level of VMS or mainframe OSes, I am not sure." Why would it have needed to be priced that high? We're talking about software here, the cost of reproduction is close to zero. It could've competed in the same market space as CP/M.