Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:481 comp.unix.bsd:7765
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!mcsun!sunic!nobeltech!ppan
From: ppan@nobeltech.se (Per Andersson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Message-ID: <1992Nov15.014513.28154@nobeltech.se>
Date: 15 Nov 92 01:45:13 GMT
References: <kzin.721442926@cc.gatech.edu> <BxLz6x.EL7@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
Organization: NobelTech AB
Lines: 24
In article <1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>There are a lot of reasons to unify the UNIX world under one roof. You
>may prefer BSD over SysV, but let's face facts -> BSD is dead. BSD is
>the property of UC California, Berkeley, and they are closing it down.
This might be true, but SunOS 4.x is not dead, and has a very large installed
base. So why do they stuff system V up out throats ? Deal with AT&T ? -
probably not. Good sales word when dealing with executives ? - probably.
To bad all software will have to be ported, especially for all of us that
use SUNs for managing and debugging networks (Where is my NIT?).
And look at all the time we will have to spend learning to administer sysV.
In addition SUN doesn't even promise to keep in line with sysV in the future,
and might deviate away. So why this fuss at all?
I wonder.
/Per
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Andersson - ppan@nobeltech.se (perand@stacken.kth.se on free time)
Managing networks at, but not speaking for Nobeltech AB, J{rf{lla, Sweden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------