ron@BRL.ARPA (Ron Natalie) (11/22/85)
Gould has taken upon itself to replace several routines in LIBC with AT&T code that works differently. There are 35 routines that are affected. If Gould would actually just stick to porting the code rather than improving it and sticking in copyright notices this product might be usable. -Ron
gouldbugs@ucbvax.UUCP (11/22/85)
Gould has taken upon itself to replace several routines in LIBC
with AT&T code that works differently. There are 35 routines that
are affected. If Gould would actually just stick to porting the
code rather than improving it and sticking in copyright notices
this product might be usable.
-Ron
On the other hand, have you ever tried to do any serious work
with the 4.2 make? It's a joke.
All in all, while I do not press the esoteric corners of the software,
I find I prefer having BSD with some System V stuff to both pure
4.2 or System V (which I use with equal frequency). Now if only
the damn terminal drivers wouldn't hang every 15 minutes.
Joel West CACI, Inc. Federal, La Jolla
{cbosgd,floyd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel
gould9!joel@nosc.ARPAgwyn@BRL.ARPA (Doug Gwyn, VLD/VMB) (11/22/85)
Yes, also several UTX-32 utilities are either AT&T UNIX System V versions or incorporate features from ditto. (E.g., /bin/ed.) The apparent goal of the Compion port of UNIX done for Gould was to provide a merged 4.2BSD/System V system. My feeling is that neither the 4.2BSD nor the System V camp is satisfied this way; indeed, I still felt it necessary to bring up the BRL System V emulation environment on UTX-32. There is of course work underway to merge these two major UNIX variants, especially at Sun Microsystems (under AT&T contract), so at some future date 4.nBSD may provide System V compatibility in one form or another. However, 4.2BSD isn't, and certainly problems can arise from any change in its semantics (including C library routines). (In other words, I agree with Ron that UTX-32 is not 4.2BSD.)