*BSD News Article 39325


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.unix.aix:48706 comp.unix.bsd:15541 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7713 comp.unix.solaris:28175 comp.unix.unixware:15085
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!palowoda
From: palowoda@netcom.com (Bob Palowoda)
Subject: Re: Unix for PC
Message-ID: <palowodaD0n2J1.3G5@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.unixware
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <199411210319.TAA18133@nic.cerf.net> <D0E32G.3x8@news.cern.ch> <MICHAELV.94Dec10124723@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> <3cd8fo$ns5@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 09:04:12 GMT
Lines: 56

Larry McVoy (lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
: Michael L. VanLoon (michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com) wrote:
: : In article <3c81c7$h1o@fido.asd.sgi.com> lm@fubar (Larry McVoy) writes:

: :    Nate Williams (nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu) wrote:
: :    : C'mon Dan.  Commercial OS software testing is completely different than
: :    : free software testing in general.  The reason Linux and FreeBSD have

: :    I hate to burst your bubble, but I worked at Sun in the systems group for
: :    a few years (and then in the server group).  They had *no* regression 
: :    test other than the binaries that shipped with the OS.  Since 5.x,
: :    they use the POSIX test suites but those (were) are pathetic and 
: :    certainly don't cover everything.

: : I've worked with a certain very large software company and it is not
: : done like this at all.  They do extensive testing constantly during
: : the development cycle, before anyone outside the company even sees it.

: I think you are misunderstanding the point.  Certainly Sun, and every
: other big or small company, will run the new release internally before
: shipping it and will "test" that the binaries "work".

Michael may not have been aware of all the different levels of testing
that goes on at Sun. Just to say they use POSIX is gross understatement.
The XPG4 branding is more terse than POSIX in that respect. There numerous
regression tests that occur within Sun which includes performance 
monitoring. Well I can't comment on the details of of the results for
obvious reasons I will say that Sun has put enomous resources into the
quality 2.4 and continues with 2.5.  The final judgements come as 
each successive release hits the public. These views of the "quality"
or "performance" change very slow and hopefully in the right direction.

As for the general preception of testing differences that occur between
the BSD group and Linux. I think the BSD groups are more oganized and
pragmatic in their approach to testing, conformance to standards and
documentation.  Linux on the other hand seems mixed as they define
a new standard of Unix kicking and screaming everytime someone mentions
BSD networking or elf support etc. Their seems to be some sort of
identity image with Linux.  It's this chaotic state that makes it  
difficult to test and support Lunix. I'm not saying Linux is a bad
implementation of Unix. After reading alot of the HOWTO's and keeping
up on the Linux admin and help groups there seems to be pockets 
of collectively organizing and test the releases. Linux 2.0 will 
be interesting. 

Boy this thread went into 5 directions all at once.

---Bob

Std Disclaimer: The above is only my opinion.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| palowoda@fiver.sns.com http://fiver.sns.com/~palowoda/ |
| Solaris x86 Corner http://fiver.sns.com/               | 
+--------------------------------------------------------+