12 Dec
2011
12 Dec
'11
1:19 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:18:35 +0000
Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that's true, but until the 1990s, it was
primarily a commercial
product, no? The one that influenced everybody most, and got licensed,
was AT&T, mainly System V, not BSD, is that not so?
The Unix of the 80'is
was BSD. It was more advanced then SysV in many
ways. (TCP/IP networking e.g.) Only when the founding of the CSRG at
UCB and thus BSD came to an end, vendors switched to SysV. BSD heavily
influenced anything that folowed it. E.g. the socket(2) API, vi(1),
lpr(1), ...
IIRC, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, SCO Unix and UnixWare,
OSF/1 etc. all
contained SysV code? (Even if not the kernel.)
Solaris is a child of the early
90'is. SunOS, its predecessor, was BSD.
AIX is no real Unix at all. It just happens to look a bit like Unix. ;-)
IBMs AOS was a BSD port.
SCO, yes, SysV.
IRIX, SysV.
OSF/1 is a MACH kernel with lots of BSD on top. You can realy feel
that Ultrix, its predecessor in the 80'is, was a BSD. I am a BSD person
and I immediately felt "at home" when I touched OSF/1 first.
There isn't much difference betwen SysV and BSD these days. BSD got
things like SysV shared memory, SysV got socket(2), ...
The thing that I like - which used to cause protests,
but it appears
to be fading now - is that after some 2 decades of busy, rapid
open-source Unix development, it is now getting to the point where it
is approaching the degree of user-friendliness of the best commercial
systems. In some areas, it's ahead; in some, behind. But it's getting
there, even when this is over the protesting howls of the Unix
old-timers.
Well. Thats why I say: Linux evolved from a free Unix clone for Unix
lovers into a bad Windows surrogate for M$ haters. ;-)
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}