Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!odin!twilight!speaker.wpd.sgi.com!coolidge From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 00:28:25 GMT References: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <o5n24ss@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> <KANDALL.92Aug5145515@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@twilight.wpd.sgi.com ( CNews Account at twilight.wpd.sgi.com ) Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Lines: 25 In article <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: |> In article <KANDALL.92Aug5145515@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: |> > |> >The Multics-UNIX and UNIX-386BSD comparison does not hold up. UNIX is |> >significantly different than Multics in enough ways that I view it as |> >an entirely different object. 386BSD was built and (until recently) |> >has been marketed at a UNIX-clone. |> |> It has not been marketed as a UNIX clone. It is a Berkeley |> Unix. Berkeley Unix is a not a clone of some other version |> of Unix. And if you think it is a clone, you can't have looked very carefully at much of the source code for each (excepting, of course, those parts of various UCB releases that AT&T/USL have appropriated into their own product...) Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. Original UNIX was an emasculated version of Multics (pun very much intended, by the original namers). It is blatantly derived from Multics. That's the same concept USL is alleging against BSDI/UCB in part of their suit... Don Coolidge coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com