From Eileen Coons Open Software Foundation,11, Cambridge Center,Cambridge, MA 02142
Tuesday’s edition of Computergram (No 1,663) did not accurately and fairly represent the facts regarding the Distributed Management Environment and Unix International’s purported activities in that arena. There are several areas that serious ly misrepresent reality: 1) Unix International sends out peace feelers: the truth is that the Open Software Foundation made the initial overtures. We pro-actively invi ted Unix International to participate at every step of the entire DME program. At our invitation they sent a representative to participate in our Requirements Workshop last October. As with every Request for Technology, we convened a panel of outside expert consultants, and we extended an invitation to Unix International to participate; they chose to decline. We have continued to keep Unix International and their Systems Management Working Group fully informed. We have made it clear from the beginning that we welcome Unix International’s participation and co-operation. 2) Object-oriented technology… went completely missing from the Open Software Foundation’s origi nal Request for Technology: the original Request for Technology specifically refers to objects, including a section expressly titled Managed Options. Object orientation was, in fact, a fundamental requirement for all submissions. 3) the Open Software Foundation has recently reappraised the scope of its DME Request for Technology and reportedly overturned the old … premise … in favour of a new emphasis on object orientation: as is evident from the original Request for Technology this is obviously untrue. In fact, we narrow, (not expand or overturn), the scope of Requests for Technology as a normal part of the Request for Technology technology evaluation process. A Request for Technology is, by design, a broad problem statement. We narrow the scope as we evaluate the actual state of available technologies to solve the problem(s). 4) The one existing DME submission that incorp orates that object management bent … comes from … Tivoli Systems: again, this is absolutely not so. All six of the DME framework submissions incorporate object management. The errors and misrepresentations gave the piece a slant very different from the reality of the situation. It’s unfortunate in that it creates a muddled and inaccurate impression of the DME Request for Technology, and of OSF’s open process.
