muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) (07/20/90)
The choice between SYSV and BSD is mainly a matter of what you are used to. Some important things were missing in SYS5r3, (maybe there were equivalents I didn't know about), but I've heard that SYS5r4 has added many BSD compatible things and is kind of a merge of both. -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-534504 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (07/20/90)
In article <179@mixcom.UUCP>, llxxkk@mixcom.UUCP (Adam Costello) writes: |> quote |> What is wrong with Sys V: I'll answer to each of these, based on a port of SVR4 that Sony is currently doing using the source from AT&T. We have not grabbed stuff from a BSD release and slapped them on top. |> No finger /bin/finger |> No who /bin/who |> No what /usr/ccs/bin/what |> ps works funny (and not nearly as well) Which ps? /bin/ps has different options and output, but the only problem I've seen with /usr/ucb/ps is that it doesn't print wait channels symbolically. |> echo is hacked Oh, you mean it has the \-escape support that has been in AT&T Unix for years? Didn't that originally come from Berkeley? |> the csh is not supported worth dog dooky I agree. We found (and fixed) a number of bugs in csh, and there are places where it's obvious csh was ignored. Still, I use it every day. |> stty has not half the options Which stty? /bin/stty is different, but I think it actually has more options, since it also supports many BSD-isms. /usr/ucb/stty has the same options as a BSD stty. |> shell scripts execute with the Bourne Shell no matter what If you are a csh user, this isn't true. If you are a ksh/sh user, it is. |> the #!<interpreter> line for scripts is not supported It works just fine. |> the csh is crippled (very poor job control) No problems for me, and I really use the hell out of job control. |> the only alternative to the csh is ksh, a worthless hack on sh This is a pretty unreasonable statement. ksh provides much superior functionality to csh. The main differences are syntactic, not semantic, so the problem of switching from csh to ksh is mostly a problem of what you are used to (and I just found out that you can alias !! to r, so I think I'm switching to ksh today). |> BSD network niceties are not supported (like telnet) They're all there. We use them every day. |> In a nut shell, it sucks. (Why else does Sun ship BSD?) |> end of quote I don't know about the Amiga version, but I do know that it's possible to combine the SVR4 source from AT&T with a competent group of Unix systems engineers and produce a very good version of Unix. Are you sure your friend has used SVR4 and not SVR3?
wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) (07/21/90)
In article <179@mixcom.UUCP> llxxkk@mixcom wr0te: >I recently told a friend that the Amiga 3000 would soon be running AT&T UNIX >System V Release 4.0, and he said that I would be much better off with a BSD >release. I asked why, and he gave me the following summary: > >quote >What is wrong with Sys V: > > No finger wrong in S5R4, easily fixed in others > No who wrong in all S5 I know of > No what wrong in S5R4, easily fixed in others which is a much more important deficiency than finger, who or what (all of these what user-soothers, except what, are Trivial exercises for the programmer; 'what' is a three-hour effort). > ps works funny (and not nearly as well) in the eye of the beholder > echo is hacked ?????? ----- :^) now this Really is a hingepoint on my OS choice > the csh is not supported worth dog dooky true in the past (csh is not really S5 material); fixed in S5R4 Big Time > stty has not half the options There are enough! > shell scripts execute with the Bourne Shell no matter what wrong in S5R4 > the #!<interpreter> line for scripts is not supported works in S5R4, granted a tedious inconvenience > the csh is crippled (very poor job control) works in S5R4; job control is a hack, though; I like windows or virtual terminals/multiscreens much better > the only alternative to the csh is ksh, a worthless hack on sh I am a csh bigot, but objectively, csh was a _incompatible_ hack on sh and ksh is a _much_ more logical (and script compatible) extension to sh > BSD network niceties are not supported (like telnet) With networking versions, where telnet is useful :-), telnet is Present > >In a nut shell, it sucks. (Why else does Sun ship BSD?) Because they started at divestiture+public_unix_availability + day 1 SunOS is wierd, if you ask me, though not a bad sort, as First Attempts go (SunOS also has most of System V in it). SunOS 4 is much better. >end of quote > >My question is, is he accurate, and if so, do his criticisms apply to Release >4.0? Sounds like your friend might just as well complain similarly about a fast Italian car because the transmission is manual or there is no Delco radio in the dash. How about? 1. BSD has no Streams 2. BSD has no shared memory (the unimplemented mmap does Not count, even though Sun implemented it, we are talking BSD :-)) 3. BSD has no semaphores 4. BSD has no decent tty driver interface (5 structures?; give me a break) 5. BSD has no init/inittab 6. BSD (usually) has no HoneyDanBer UUCP I can write a finger, what, when, why, which, who all in a few hours (have done). I can't fix the BSD deficiencies without a $100,000 investment. Fortunately, I don't have to. I have System V :-|. Of course, the emperor has no clothes, Carter does have little pills, my dog is bigger than your dog, and all *IXes are created differently. And they all get most real work done. S5R4 is the union, at great cost, of the UCB and AT&T worlds. So, you can choose between an emperor with or without clothes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US "It was electrons that brought down the Berlin Wall." -- Timothy Leary
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (07/22/90)
For about two years now, every time somebody has mentioned the System V versus BSD battle (which was really lost and won years ago), somebody else has invariably pointed to the not-yet-here-but-real-soon-now SVR4 as the panacea. But most of the general public that's stuck with System V has been really stuck with SVR3 (or in some cases SVR2, and in one square-case-with-a-floppy, with SVR1). By the time SVR4 becomes widely available, 4.4BSD and commercial OSs derived from it will be becoming available and the debate will begin again....And this time around, presumably the as-yet-nonexistent SVR5 will be the panacea. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
rick@tmiuv0.uucp (07/23/90)
In article <93@dlss2.UUCP>, james@dlss2.UUCP (James Cummings) writes: > In article <179@mixcom.UUCP> llxxkk@mixcom.UUCP (Adam Costello) writes: >>I recently told a friend that the Amiga 3000 would soon be running AT&T UNIX >>System V Release 4.0, and he said that I would be much better off with a BSD >>release. I asked why, and he gave me the following summary: > > Your friend needs to look at System V a little more closely. > Note the following, based on my 3B2/700 AT&T System V 3.2.1 system. [some quotes and such deleted] System V, release 4 has the lion's share of BSD 4.3 built in. Your buddy needs to look at the ATT specifications of SVR4 much more carefully. He/she is undoubtedly a Sun user. >> the csh is not supported worth dog dooky > O.K...I don't know what support he's looking for > but most System Vs don't have csh. It's sorta > like saying Chevy dealers don't carry Fords... > unless you REALLY HAVE TO HAVE csh, this wouldn't > be a major concern. Gee, my ESIX (SVR3) has csh. Lots of SVR3's have csh. >>In a nut shell, it sucks. (Why else does Sun ship BSD?) > Other than simply a great deal of frustration because > csh is not the forced standard, I think your friend > should consider seeking help. > BTW seems Sun and AT&T(SysV) have some rather close > ties, but then you "friend" probably thinks Sun is > prostituting themselves....right? Sun was also not willing to pay the license fee to AT&T to use Unix, so they went out to the universities and got BSD. Your friend has Sunstroke, and is welcome to his/her opinion, but he/she is not much of a professional. Anything he/she says regarding the merits of SVR3/R4 and BSD should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. And besides, doesn't this belong in comp.os.unix or somewhere? 8-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) "I'm tellin' ya, Valiant! Da whole ting stinks like yesterday's diapers!" - Baby Herman in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
davidsen@antarctica.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) (07/23/90)
In article <179@mixcom.UUCP>, llxxkk@mixcom.UUCP (Adam Costello) writes: |> I recently told a friend that the Amiga 3000 would soon be running AT&T UNIX |> System V Release 4.0, and he said that I would be much better off with a BSD |> release. I asked why, and he gave me the following summary: Your friend has obviously never seen even a list of what's in V.4, much less the real thing. He's made the whole thing up, guy. |> No finger |> No who |> No what Hogwash. |> ps works funny (and not nearly as well) Same functionality, diferent option names and format. Better choice of what's displayed by default. |> echo is hacked He means it supports the normal escape options as well as the command line options. That's more functionality. |> the csh is not supported worth dog dooky It's based on 4.3BSD, but then I always thought that about csh. |> stty has not half the options |> shell scripts execute with the Bourne Shell no matter what |> the #!<interpreter> line for scripts is not supported Lies. |> the csh is crippled (very poor job control) That's true, it's based on BSD. jsh is available for sensible job control. |> the only alternative to the csh is ksh, a worthless hack on sh Does he take drugs? ksh has all of the capabilities of csh, although they do have diferent names and forms in some cases. Even the csh lovers around here have converted for most shell programming, and some for interractive use as well. |> BSD network niceties are not supported (like telnet) More blatent lies. |> |> In a nut shell, it sucks. (Why else does Sun ship BSD?) In a nutshell, Sun doesn't. They currently ship SunOS, and rev V is V.4. That's their opinion of the matter. I hate to say it, but I think your "friend" has fed you a whole bunch of lies. You can like V.4 or like BSD, but don't base a decision on a bunch of total misinformation.
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (07/23/90)
In article <172@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) writes: > the #!<interpreter> line for scripts is not supported works in S5R4, granted a tedious inconvenience They actually put the '#!' magic number in the kernel, so that I can create exec'able shell (and awk, and perl, and ...) scripts? That'd be a good thing. 5. BSD has no init/inittab There's certainly an init on BSD Unix. Been there since before they added vm to the unix. That there's no inittab is a feature. 6. BSD (usually) has no HoneyDanBer UUCP Easily fixed. <mike -- Cats will be cats and cats will be cool Mike Meyer Cats can be callous and cats can be cruel mwm@relay.pa.dec.com Cats will be cats, remember this words! decwrl!mwm Cats will be cats and cats eat birds.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (07/24/90)
In article <179@mixcom.UUCP> llxxkk@mixcom.UUCP (Adam Costello) writes:
-My question is, is he accurate, and if so, do his criticisms apply to Release>release. I asked why, and he gave me the following summary:
-4.0?
He is almost totally wrong.patl@bodacia.Eng.Sun.COM (Pat Lashley) (07/26/90)
In article <3488@tmiuv0.uucp> rick@tmiuv0.uucp writes: >... >Sun was also not willing to pay the license fee to AT&T to use Unix, so >they went out to the universities and got BSD. Your friend has Sunstroke, >and is welcome to his/her opinion, but he/she is not much of a professional. >Anything he/she says regarding the merits of SVR3/R4 and BSD should be taken >with a LARGE grain of salt. It wasn't just the licence fee; SVR3 and earlier suffered from a variety of brain damage which overwhelmed its few good points, rendering BSD 4.x vastly superior. Also, the Sun founders came from BSD environments. SVR4 is another animal entirely. It has almost all of the great things from BSD and SunOS. (SunOS hasn't been pure BSD for quite a while now...) The current (4.1) release of SunOS is based upon BSD, with various Sun originated extentions and SVR4 compatibility mods (i.e. streams based terminal drivers). Rumor has it that the next MAJOR release of SunOS will be SVR4 based with BSD and SunOS extention/compatibility changes. -- X-Face: #FowkUVVz[9{ux;7z%!?7>\5DCdVqaja5uk!4Z~)5*f@-"n&||t35?wVN+UloPr-Q;iR\;t snA%,sJ:+$a[eV(aKz4\=`MIH#{`/#HW>TT6Hx=Xp06oj>ta|]bFa'1BiI5Wj_y7n,l)tFuEd(oE`V 3w'0..-`[}nX:VVJ&@Br$cCu|/iqA4VC}/APx:gge9-fj(@V*~W[L@KP@^AcXvel])1%zy[&c}t"\z :X,J8<1D%I;J>tY6EZ7lx,8R&JhgPyZ4Zz[3J`#N@zc&d<"V+&O*;gRd^)xC`34h8[!Vb+
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (07/30/90)
patl@bodacia.Eng.Sun.COM (Pat Lashley) writes: >It wasn't just the licence fee; SVR3 and earlier suffered from a >variety of brain damage which overwhelmed its few good points, >rendering BSD 4.x vastly superior. Also, the Sun founders came from >BSD environments. >SVR4 is another animal entirely. It has almost all of the great things >from BSD and SunOS. (SunOS hasn't been pure BSD for quite a while now...) Not quite. System V Release 4 is only the latest in a series of integrations, viz: System V, Release 3 + SCO Xenix ---> System V, Release 3.2 System V, Release 3.2 + Sun OS ---> System V, Release 4 A simplification, of course, but details must wait for another day. As for BSD 4.x being "vastly superior", that statement held true only for certain requirements, but that issue is now moot.