Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!sgi!igor!jbass From: jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) Subject: Re: 386BSD vs BSDI Message-ID: <1993Mar5.204926.10567@igor.tamri.com> Organization: Toshiba America MRI Inc, S. San Francisco, CA. References: <1n0mgmINNjat@ftp.UU.NET> <1993Mar3.120727.11788@igor.tamri.com> <1n5nhf$k5d@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 20:49:26 GMT Lines: 23 In article <1n5nhf$k5d@agate.berkeley.edu> bostic@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic) writes: >In article <1993Mar3.120727.11788@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes: >USL's purpose in publishing these interface standards was to enable >vendors to build device drivers, file systems, and other pieces of >software that would be compatible with many different versions of their >system. (Yes, file systems can be portable. See S. Kleiman's paper >"Vnodes: An Architecture for Multiple File System Types in Sun UNIX".) >If you don't want to be, for example, device driver compatible with >other variants of UNIX, your statement is correct. If you have no >interest in trying to convince the rest of the world that they should >rewrite all of their device drivers, the functionality of biowait/iowait >is fixed, and cannot be changed. yes a UNIX interfaced IS published ... for SVR4 ... which is very different than V7/32V .... this doesn't allow UCB/BSD to retroactively apply the interface back to an older product where the interface is NOT published. Had UCB/CSRG upgraded their code to a SVR4 interface this would be a completely different argument. John Bass DMS Design