Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:527 comp.unix.bsd:7930 Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!netcomsv!sjsumcs!rick From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T) Message-ID: <1992Nov17.160727.9137@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept. References: <1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> <1992Nov15.014513.28154@nobeltech.se> <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> <Bxt8rG.DE3@fulcrum.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:07:27 GMT Lines: 15 igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: >In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes: >> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV. MAny of the >Really? DEC don't. IBM don't. HP don't really. Who's left who DEC is pushing OSF/1, which is has SysV roots, IBM pushes AIX which is a SysV derivative. They may not call them SysV - but they are much more SysV than BSD! >qualify as ``major''? I don't know if SGI are (a) major or (b) Sys V, >but it doesn't really matter. >ian