*BSD News Article 18714


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