Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:508 comp.unix.bsd:7870
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Message-ID: <id.U_0V.SJ3@ferranti.com>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <BxLz6x.EL7@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> <1992Nov16.075931@eklektix.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:58:17 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <1992Nov16.075931@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> The only reason SysV is alive is because of SVR4, and the only reason any-
> one wants SVR4 is because of the BSDisms.
Frankly, most people in the commercial world couldn't give a shit about BSD
features. What they want is (a) usable MS-DOS/Windows emulation, (b) native
commercial software, and (c) a system they don't need a guru to support. All
the new BSD features are just confusing them.
System V doesn't give you all this, yet, but it's a damn sight closer than
BSD. It's probably even better than most PC-based networks as a multiuser
solution. Unfortunately, I suspect NT will do all this better and UNIX on
the desktop is doomed whether it's SV or BSD.
So quit flaming about how SV is best, or BSD is best. Come up with solutions
to the *real* requirements...
--
Peter da Silva / 77487-5012 USA / +1 713 274 5180
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?