Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!samsung!nighthawk.clearpoint.com!transfer!bu.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!flatlin!bad From: bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <BsK0H7.DK3@flatlin.ka.sub.org> Date: 6 Aug 92 08:48:43 GMT References: <KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <KANDALL.92Aug5175428@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Guru Systems/Funware Department Lines: 18 In <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <KANDALL.92Aug5175428@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >>BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they >>even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out >>of their money. >Besides, re-implementing something is entirely reasonable. >That's why there's more than one C compiler in the world >(just for example). Or DR-DOS (yuck). And I don't see Microsoft bitching about that either. -- Christoph Badura --- bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org ISO? Nicht immer, aber immer M-vfter.