Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:556 comp.unix.bsd:8035 Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T) Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:56:29 GMT Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Message-ID: <9211212356.41@rmkhome.UUCP> References: <Bxt8rG.DE3@fulcrum.co.uk> <1992Nov17.160727.9137@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> <1egusmINNtu@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz> <1ehqvhINNl3b@morrow.stanford.edu> Lines: 47 In article <1ehqvhINNl3b@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes: >In article <1egusmINNtu@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz> >bcs@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz (Brent Summers) writes: >>In article <1992Nov17.160727.9137@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu >>(Richard Warner) writes: >>|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! > >Funny, I had thought that OSF/1 was based on Mach and the >4.3BSD superstructure atop the Mach kernel. Its reason for >existence is to provide an alternative to System V. However, OSF and OSF/1 were developed from AT&T licensed sources (32V?). >As for AIX being a SysV derivative, that's news to me, too: >AIX 1.x for PS/2s and AIX/370 were developed from BSD; AIX >3.x for the RS/6000 has as many BSD roots as SysV roots, >and its programming interface is more POSIX.1 than it is >either SysV or BSD; AIX/ESA (the successor to AIX/370) is >another OSF/1 port. IBM also has the requisite UNIX license from AT&T. >>This highlights the great lie: *if* you define "your operating system" in >>terms of kernel design and layout (although the contents of the programmers >>libraries and their exact semantics are much more important IMHO) then >>neither SVR4 nor any other so-called UNIX is going to be the `standard', or >>a significant `unifying force', or `the real UNIX' or any of the other neat >>phrases flying around at the moment. > >True enough. The System V PROGRAMMING INTERFACE is, >however, the de facto standard. Most of the vendors who >maintain their own OSs instead of porting each new >version from USL are keeping their systems SVID compilant, >whether the kernel technology is derived from BSD or >pre-SVR3 AT&T. Very true. And remember, a "legal" BSD system ( at least to AT&T lawyers ) is built under a UNIX license with the missing parts of BSD filled in by AT&T source code. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP