Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1882 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 15:02:27 EST Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!alm From: alm@netcom.com (Andrew Moore) Subject: Re: WFJ's talk last night... Message-ID: <1993Feb22.071916.14364@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <C2qyyp.Hn1@sugar.neosoft.com> <fZDtP0x@quack.sac.ca.us> <C2tFIH.498@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 07:19:16 GMT Lines: 19 In article <C2tFIH.498@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I worried that 386BSD 0.2 might... >> >(3) be incompatible at the kernel level with BSDI. > >David Fox replied: >> Who cares about (3)? (grin) > >I do. There are people who are doing good stuff with the BSDI platform, like >the Viva File System, and I'd like to be able to play with it. Hang on. Bill made no mention of changing the system call interface. He _does_ want the 386BSD C library, at least, to be fully Posix compliant. As for file systems, I am not a kernel programmer, but it sounds like he is trying to make kernel extensions easier. No mention was made about binary compatibility. As for shared libraries, it sounds like no one has done anything. Whether Bill will have time to do this himself... -Andrew Moore <alm@netcom.com>