Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.service.uci.edu!usenet From: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@hydra.acs.uci.edu> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:40:23 -0800 Organization: University of California, Irvine Lines: 90 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <30FC1B47.17A3@hydra.acs.uci.edu> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4crnbe$8a@olympus.nwnet.net> <4cs2kn$kfg@cynic.portal.ca> <4cu7t0$mg5@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4cv8j1$59k@park.uvsc.edu> <4cvjpk$rpf@durban.vector.co.za> <4d4s3u$u3@news.voicenet.com> <4d70n5$6lp@diablo.cet.co.jp> <4d9i2k$qo9@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bingy.acs.uci.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4m) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1856 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:1987 comp.unix.solaris:56700 comp.unix.aix:68244 Terry Lambert wrote: > > Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> wrote: > ] > ] I guess there is no end to the bickering amoung the various Unix camps. > ] Aren't the Unix wars supposed to be over? > > They were until Sun bought out their license for SVR4 sources > so that their code could diverge again. Divergent? GET A CLUE, FOOL! The entire industry is System V! It just can't get much plainer than that, can it? > BTW: it would be legal for Sun to put the SVR4 code they bought > out up for anonymous FTP. Now That might be something to work on. Note, however, that Sun is now selling OS' for the same price the PeeCee vendors have been. Presumably MicroSloth could put (much of) their software up for ftp also... > ] The positive side of friendly competition can described by looking at > ] something like the file system. > ] > ] SYSV has s5fs. > ] > ] BSD makes ffs. > ] > ] SYSV adopts ffs calls it ufs and implements it within its > ] vnode/vfs framework. This facilitates the development of > ] new file systems such as vxfs journaling file system, and nfs. > > Uh, the Usenix VFS papers were all based on SunOS. > > As was Heidemann's Ficus work at UCLA. > > As was Rosenthal's work. So sun had top products, then, as now. But SunOS 4.1.x didn't keep up - or rather, it's parent OS, BSD, didn't. SysV did, so the obvious answer.... Are you starting to catch on? The industry was moving rapidly away from BSD. Sun was the last major player with a BSD-based OS. All the BSD-zealots had crowded onto sun, to stick with BSD. But sun realized they couldn't but so ludicrously different from the rest of the industry... And then Sun caught absolute living hell, in terms of BS mocked-up attacks, for being the last vendor to make the switch. If you're so in love with Friggin BSD, why don't you go after the vendors that -started- the trend away from BSD? > You also forgot "USL files suit against UCB and forces them to > not distribute some portions of UFS". So AT&T is out of the picture now. Got it? NO MORE DEATHSTAR? You even seem to be able to parrot this, but it hasn't yet impacted your decisions. This is not the mark of great intelligence. > ] The BSD community reimplements vnode/vfs and nfs; and adds > ] stackable vnodes, union mounts, and the portal file system. > > Sun invented VFS. You could argue that it was a reimplementation > of fsswitch[], until you looked at the location that the in core > copy of the on disk inode data was stored in both models. > > Portals are old. The Heidemann architecture for vnode stacking > was work done at UCLA, not UCB. Union mounts are a special case > of volume spanning (like the Sun TFS and loopback mountin from > 4.x). > > ] With WinNT amoung us the bickering needs to end and the Unix > ] vendors need to find new ways to be cooperate and be > ] competive by delivering better quality systems and better > ] service. > > It's not going to happen. There is no way to add value to > non-commodity hardware, other than divergence. There's no > way for products to compete on commodity hardware without > divergence. Did you follow this group -at- -all- before you started shooting your mouth off?