shahryar@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Persian Nightmare) (02/15/91)
Dear all, I am wondering when DEC plans to re-write Ultrix and base it on BSD 4.3 or later. Personally I think using 4.2 as a standard is ok, but 4.3 has so many more nice things we can with it, and with 4.4 coming out, hmmmmmmmm??? :-) Shahryar -- 'How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world! Fie on't, ah fie, fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb14.235721.355@nic.csu.net> shahryar@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Persian Nightmare) writes:
< I am wondering when DEC plans to re-write Ultrix and base it on
< BSD 4.3 or later. Personally I think using 4.2 as a standard is
< ok, but 4.3 has so many more nice things we can with it, and with
< 4.4 coming out, hmmmmmmmm??? :-)
In the future, Ultrix will *not* be based on BSD. DEC is an active
member of the OSF and has publicly announced that at some time in the
future, Ultrix will be based OSF/1 (ie. Mach kernel + lots of other
functionality). While I'm not familiar with BSD, I have read quite a
few papers on Mach. I would be surprised if BSD came anywhere near the
level of innovation of Mach (ie. threads, SMP, IPC, memory management,
etc.)
--
Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476
MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail: morse@quark.mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5 | quark.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.netmeissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) (02/19/91)
In article <MORSE.91Feb15085353@quark.mpr.ca> morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes: | In the future, Ultrix will *not* be based on BSD. DEC is an active | member of the OSF and has publicly announced that at some time in the | future, Ultrix will be based OSF/1 (ie. Mach kernel + lots of other | functionality). While I'm not familiar with BSD, I have read quite a | few papers on Mach. I would be surprised if BSD came anywhere near the | level of innovation of Mach (ie. threads, SMP, IPC, memory management, | etc.) Though of course, OSF/1 is based on BSD (reno and tahoe) in addition to Mach, System V.2, X3PG, AIX, etc...... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?
phil@inetg1.Arco.Com (Phil Meyer) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb14.235721.355@nic.csu.net>, shahryar@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Persian Nightmare) writes: > Dear all, > > I am wondering when DEC plans to re-write Ultrix and base it on > BSD 4.3 or later. Personally I think using 4.2 as a standard is > ok, but 4.3 has so many more nice things we can with it, and with > 4.4 coming out, hmmmmmmmm??? :-) > DEC is dropping support for BSD all together soon. OSF/1 is their major priority right now. We were told that even bug fixes for ULTRIX are being weighted as to importance. For example: "The first that you will see of shared libraries will be in OSF/1." The time table for OSF/1 was stated as "Some time this year." -- +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Phil Meyer phil@arco.com Work:(214) 754-6805 | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
avolio@decuac.DEC.COM (Frederick M. Avolio) (02/21/91)
As always, please talk to your local Digital Sales and Technical Support people for full details and information. Not that I saw anything grossly wrong, but it does bother me that the answers about the future direction of Digital's ULTRIX product family have customer responses outnumbering Digital responses in the newsgroup. The response I mailed to the original poster is correct. (:-)) Basically, "dropping support" is a strong phrase. (From <1991Feb20.002325.19167@Arco.COM>.) And not implementing shared libraries until an OSF/1-based release does not indicate non-repair of bugs as the example cites a missing feature, not a bug. Anyway the correct, short answer is that the next major release of ULTRIX will be OSF/1-based, as we have stated numerous times over the last half-year, and that is our corporate direction for our open systems based products. Fred
morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) (02/22/91)
In article <MEISSNER.91Feb18213935@curley.osf.org> meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes: In article <MORSE.91Feb15085353@quark.mpr.ca> morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes: | In the future, Ultrix will *not* be based on BSD. DEC is an active | member of the OSF and has publicly announced that at some time in the | future, Ultrix will be based OSF/1 (ie. Mach kernel + lots of other | functionality). While I'm not familiar with BSD, I have read quite a | few papers on Mach. I would be surprised if BSD came anywhere near the | level of innovation of Mach (ie. threads, SMP, IPC, memory management, | etc.) > Though of course, OSF/1 is based on BSD (reno and tahoe) in addition > to Mach, System V.2, X3PG, AIX, etc...... How much actual "BSD" or "AT&T" code is in OSF/1? I vaguely recall reading that some BSD and AT&T code exists in OSF/1, and that there may even be some in OSF/2? Is that correct? -- Daryl Morse | Voice : (604) 293-5476 MPR Teltech Ltd. | Fax : (604) 293-5787 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | E-Mail: morse@quark.mpr.ca Canada, V5A 4B5 | quark.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
fingerhu@ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) (02/22/91)
Frederick M. Avolio writes: >As always, please talk to your local Digital Sales and Technical >Support people for full details and information. What do we do when the local sales are incompetent?
jch@dyfed.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby) (02/22/91)
In article <MORSE.91Feb21204636@quark.mpr.ca>, morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes: |> How much actual "BSD" or "AT&T" code is in OSF/1? I vaguely recall |> reading that some BSD and AT&T code exists in OSF/1, and that there |> may even be some in OSF/2? Is that correct? You still need an AT&T source license for OSF/1 (the source, anyway), something more-or-less equivalent to a BSD4.3 source license (though I forget the exact requirements). Mach 3, which (one presumes) will form the basis of OSF/2 is publically available, or at least the micro-kernel and UNIX server are. The VAX specific code requires a BSD license, the Sun specific code requires a Sun license (I'm quoting from memory, I'm sure you've seen the annoucements :-) The i386 and mips dependent code does not require any special license and comes with the Mach 3 kit. If OSF plan to unencumber OSF/2 (or whatever) you'll have to talk to someone who can give you an official answer. -- John Haxby, Definitively Wrong. Digital <jch@wessex.rdg.dec.com> Reading, England <...!ukc!wessex!jch>
pat@orac.pgh.pa.us (Pat Barron) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.085808.15839@hollie.rdg.dec.com> jch@dyfed.rdg.dec.com (John Haxby) writes: >Mach 3, which (one presumes) will form the basis of OSF/2 is publically >available, or at least the micro-kernel and UNIX server are. The Unix server is not yet publically available. CMU says that POE (the "written from scratch, without any AT&T code" Unix server) will be released probably later this year sometime. --Pat.