campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (03/16/88)
I am interested in a _concise_ description (extra points if it fits on one
screen) of what's new in SVR3 (besides streams -- I've already read the papers
on that). The question I'm really trying to answer is, given a choice
between SVR2 (for perhaps less money) and SVR3, why should I choose SVR3?
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) (03/16/88)
In article <1062@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes: >The question I'm really trying to answer is, given a choice >between SVR2 (for perhaps less money) and SVR3, why should I choose SVR3? 1. RFS 2. STREAMS 3. Shared Libraries 4. Better signal handling Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
hwe@beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) (03/18/88)
> >The question I'm really trying to answer is, given a choice > >between SVR2 (for perhaps less money) and SVR3, why should I choose SVR3? > 1. RFS > 2. STREAMS > 3. Shared Libraries > 4. Better signal handling > > Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ Let us not forget the lawyers: 5. A clause in the license that lets AT&T decide to pull your product whenever THEY decide that you are not really selling SVR3. Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov
dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) (03/19/88)
In article <16603@beta.UUCP>, hwe@beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes: > Let us not forget the lawyers: > > 5. A clause in the license that lets AT&T decide to pull your product > whenever THEY decide that you are not really selling SVR3. Is this just if you're calling your product Sys V.3, or if you are selling something derived from Sys V.3 (and not calling it such) and they decide they don't like it? -- David L. Smith {sdcsvax!jack,ihnp4!jack, hp-sdd!crash, pyramid, uport}!sdeggo!dave sdeggo!dave@amos.ling.edu Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever.
narayan@tandem.UUCP (Narayan Mohanram) (03/19/88)
In article <1062@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes: >I am interested in a _concise_ description (extra points if it fits on one >screen) of what's new in SVR3 (besides streams -- I've already read the papers >on that). The question I'm really trying to answer is, given a choice >between SVR2 (for perhaps less money) and SVR3, why should I choose SVR3? There are serveral new features (besides streams and tli). there are: shareable librarires, New signal support (signals that stick). new C compiler, RFS, streams support utilities. I think the shareable libraries is the best part (besides streams). The disk space taken up by most programs has dropped by about 7K (stdio beleive it or not). I don't remember if 5.2 was a swapping system or not. But 5.3 I know is a paging machine.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/20/88)
In article <16603@beta.UUCP> hwe@beta.UUCP (Skip Egdorf) writes: >5. A clause in the license that lets AT&T decide to pull your product > whenever THEY decide that you are not really selling SVR3. That's not what the clause says. In any case, VARs have a contract with AT&T and of course violations of the contract by either side can lead to litigation. Nothing new there. The only thing new is that you can't use their trademark for a product that doesn't meet their specifications. Somehow I doubt that this is an innovation in the annals of contract law.