rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) (04/16/91)
Is Amiga UNIX 1.1 R4 version 1.0 or R4 version 2.0? I.e. does it have the fixes and "enhancements" that were in version 2.0 of the UNIX source? Do 386 and M68k version numbers mean the same thing? I.e. version 2.0 of the UNIX sources for 386 had ALOT of fixes over version 1.0, I assume this was in source code so it is applicable to the M68k source as well? Is 2.0 Amiga UNIX based on System V Release 4.0 version 2.0 and 1.1 Amiga UNIX based on System V Release 4.0 version 1.x? Can I look forward to seeing all the bugs that drove me nutts in 386 System V Release 4.0 version 1.x show up in Amiga UNIX 1.1 and 2.0? Supposedly additional fixes beyond version 2.0 are being put in the 386 R4's. Will Amiga UNIX have these fixes as well or is it an island all to itself that can't take advantage of fixes made in the 386 source code relm? The 2.0 and 1.x designations in Amiga UNIX made me curious if these were the Release 4.0 version numbers or not. Inquiring minds want to know... -Rob -- Rob Healey rhealey@digibd.com Digi International (DigiBoard) Eden Prairie, MN (612) 943-9020
skrenta@amix.commodore.com (Rich Skrenta) (04/17/91)
rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes: > Is Amiga UNIX 1.1 R4 version 1.0 or R4 version 2.0? I.e. does it have > the fixes and "enhancements" that were in version 2.0 of the > UNIX source? There is no "version 1.0" or "version 2.0" designation on the AT&T R4 source. In fact, there isn't even a ".0" after the "4" anymore. The 1.0's and 2.0's after "Unix system V release 4" are vendor specific. Thus, there would be no correlation between our 1.1->2.0 release and another vendors. Not in terms of AT&T source, anyway. Rich -- skrenta@amix.commodore.com
dfields@radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Fields) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr15.211314.4989@digibd.com>, rhealey@digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes: |> |> Is Amiga UNIX 1.1 R4 version 1.0 or R4 version 2.0? I.e. does it have |> the fixes and "enhancements" that were in version 2.0 of the |> UNIX source? Do 386 and M68k version numbers mean the same thing? |> I.e. version 2.0 of the UNIX sources for 386 had ALOT of fixes |> over version 1.0, I assume this was in source code so it is applicable |> to the M68k source as well? I can't speak for Commodore (or any one but myself for that matter) but I've heard that the USL will not be making the version numbers for even the reference ports to different architectures be consistent. So i386R4.0.2 != 68kR4.0.2. I don't know where C= is at but given the amount of work to upgrade the entire source base I doubt that they have upgraded to 4.0.2 let alone 4.0.3. I'm not sure what you mean by "source code" in your last statement but I wouldn't assume that all the source is portable or that all the bug fixes will work on all architectures. Dave Fields // Motorola Computer Group // dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sri-Man) (04/18/91)
In article <2535@urbana.mcd.mot.com> dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com writes: >In article <1991Apr15.211314.4989@digibd.com>, rhealey@digibd.com (Rob >Healey) writes: >|> >|> Is Amiga UNIX 1.1 R4 version 1.0 or R4 version 2.0? I.e. does it have >|> the fixes and "enhancements" that were in version 2.0 of the >|> UNIX source? Do 386 and M68k version numbers mean the same thing? You know, I think MIT (people who made X right?) is already started on Xwindows version 5. Think that Commodore might just scrape R4 and come out wtih R5 instead, so that it will have it before anybody else? Sri
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (04/19/91)
In article <10734@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sri-Man) writes: > In article <2535@urbana.mcd.mot.com> dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com writes: > >In article <1991Apr15.211314.4989@digibd.com>, rhealey@digibd.com (Rob > >Healey) writes: > >|> > >|> Is Amiga UNIX 1.1 R4 version 1.0 or R4 version 2.0? > > You know, I think MIT (people who made X right?) is already started on > Xwindows version 5. Think that Commodore might just scrape R4 and come out > wtih R5 instead, so that it will have it before anybody else? X11R5 will not be released to the general public in the same timeframe that C= needs to get out a better X server/libraries/clients. Alpha R5 is in the hands of the XCONS right now. People always bring up a thread like this when a new X11 revision is mentioned on the net. The fact is that C= needs to have a powerful X package today, and that means R4. IMHO of course. 8^) > Sri -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733