Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!fw.novatel.ca!sidney.novatel.ca!hpeyerl From: hpeyerl@sidney.novatel.ca (Herb Peyerl) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Usefulness of BSD/Linux Source Knowledg Date: 5 Aug 1994 14:22:55 GMT Organization: NovAtel Communications Ltd. Lines: 26 Message-ID: <31thvv$est@fw.novatel.ca> References: <cln.775305310@dynamo> <316kug$ea9@wsiserv.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <paragCtxMsp.3An@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sidney.novatel.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Parag Patel (parag@netcom.com) wrote: : gabara@Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.DE (Andrej Gabara) writes: : > ..... ..... ...... Look at Apollo Domain/OS, which is BSD based, Sorry Andrej; Domain/OS was *not* BSD based. It was proprietary with an artificial bsd4.3 layer that largely pretended to be bsd4.3 for the most part. It also had a sys5.3 layer that did exactly the same thing. To say "Domain/OS was BSD based" is a misnomer. : >it does not exist anymore either. Why did HP put HP-UX on the HP/Apollo : >architecture and not further developed Domain/OS? I'm sure they have a : >reason. ..... They're still developing Domain/OS in some sense in that they're coming out with patches and fixes to the current (10.4) release. In fact; I heard that a new version was going to offer scsi-disk support on the DNxxxx series nodes. This was never present before and I would consider that "further development". Of course; I fully admit that Domain/OS is a dead horse. I just wanted to clarify a few things. -- hpeyerl@novatel.ca | NovAtel Commnications Ltd. hpeyerl@fsa.ca | <nothing I say matters anyway> "A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down."