Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.sys5.misc:219 comp.unix.bsd:12309 Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.misc,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!emba-news.uvm.edu!trantor.emba.uvm.edu!wollman From: wollman@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: SysV vs. BSD philosophies Message-ID: <1993Jul21.192318.25193@emba.uvm.edu> Sender: news@emba.uvm.edu Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility References: <CAIyxu.Eyx@candle.uucp> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:23:18 GMT Lines: 65 In article <CAIyxu.Eyx@candle.uucp> root@candle.uucp (Bruce Momjian) writes: >I have been told that System V and BSD have differing philosophies that >manifest themselves in the way their operating systems are designed, >sort of like an 'East coast', 'West coast' thing. >I have used SVr3, SVr4, and BSD/386, and have not come to understand >what these people are referring to. >Each has different features, and is configured differently, but they >seems pretty similar to me. This is because you're looking at both systems fairly late in their life-cycles. You should compare, for example, SVR2 with the original 4.3 on a VAX, for a clearer example. As a general rule, System V variants seem to have placed a lot of effort on things that are perceived as ``businesslike'', like process and login accounting, and system-administration shells and suchlike. BSD variants have concentrated on more useful things, like networking, or mail programs that prompt for a subject, or better filesystems. More recently, BSD systems have served as testbeds for examining the workability and implementability of POSIX standards (especially 1003.1). Other things to note: BSD systems generally come with manual pages in source form. System V systems have STREAMS. BSD as delivered by Berkeley has always, to my knowledge, included /sources/ -- indeed, you have to have a source license before they'll give you anything. (But it's OK if the last license you signed was with Western Electric, for UNIX/32V.) BSD systems tend to have every function you could possibly want in the standard C library, whereas SysV systems have the same set of functions, under different names (and probably in multiple, incompatible versions), located in a separate library archive. System V is a product of USL, which is not going away any time soon; BSD is a product of the CSRG, which is going away soon. (I assume that, since the original date has been passed, CSRG will shut down once the lawsuit is settled. Keith Bostic, can you comment?) BSD is primarily a research system. Therefore, it's OK to say, for example, that the vhangup() call is obsolete and no longer supported. By contrast, recent System V systems seem to include the union of all the system and library calls supported by Xenix, 4.3BSD, V7, and SVR3, except in areas where USL apparently decided to strike out on their own. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if it keeps your apps working, but if you don't have any apps, then it's just kernel bloat. Current BSD systems like BSD/386 and 4.4 come with GCC as the standard compiler. Current SysV systems like SVR4.2 don't come with a standard compiler, but you can get one from your vendor for extra money; usually the compiler you get is the one whose authors should be beaten over the head with a copy of ISO 9899 or (better) ANS X3.159 (the original edition, with Rationale). USL's licensing structure means that most SysV systems are sold in incremental user capacities (usually 2, 16, and unlimited). BSD systems don't care. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@emba.uvm.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. uvm-gen!wollman | It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people UVM disagrees. | who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant