Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.solaris:500 comp.unix.bsd:7851 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!auspex-gw!guy From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T) Message-ID: <15509@auspex-gw.auspex.com> Date: 16 Nov 92 19:10:01 GMT References: <1992Nov15.014513.28154@nobeltech.se> <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> <Bxt8rG.DE3@fulcrum.co.uk> Sender: news@auspex-gw.auspex.com Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 27 Nntp-Posting-Host: bootme.auspex.com >> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV. MAny of the > >Really? DEC don't. IBM don't. HP don't really. Sun, arguably, "doesn't really", either, if you consider "us[ing] SYSV" to mean "using straight SV off the tape". AIX 3.x looks more like SV than BSD in several ways, and HP-UX does also. (Can you say "/etc/inittab"?) Ultrix is, as I understand it, more BSDish than SVish; anybody know what their OSF/1 release looks like in that regard? (The issues here are: 1) in the "default" programming environment, do those calls with incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion? 2) in the "default" user environment, do those commands with incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion? 3) do the "administrative" utilities look more like "BSD" ones, "SV" ones, or Something Else? I put "BSD" and "SV" in quotes because POSIX is making both of them change....)