Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:640 comp.unix.bsd:8346 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!uunet!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:24:07 GMT Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Message-ID: <9211190124.10@rmkhome.UUCP> References: <BxLz6x.EL7@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> <1992Nov16.075931@eklektix.com> <id.U_0V.SJ3@ferranti.com> Lines: 22 In article <id.U_0V.SJ3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >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. Windows NT. Microsoft people, who have been posting in comp.os.os2.advocacy, have basically said that NT will not come with software to support multiple terminals/logins. The most likely use of NT will be as a server for systems running Windows 3.1. The actual name of the NT product is Windows 3.1 NT. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP