4.2 had networking, 4.1 did not.   32V did not either.  I'm asking 32V vs
4.1
ᐧ

On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:30 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:

> BSD had networking.  Once you had that, you don't look back.  Sys V (and
> prior) so far as I know, didn't get networking until Coherent did their
> STREAMS stack that somehow ended up at Lachman - I ported it to a crazy
> super computer and to SCO Unix.  SCO was pretty stock AT&T code and let
> me tell you, it felt pretty crappy after having used BSD and then SunOS.
> It was a giant step backwards.
>
> I just think the BSD folks were moving forward faster.  Rob with start
> talking about cat waving its tail, I get it, not everything was better
> but a lot was.  Solid networking that performed was very pleasant.
>
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 02:23:49PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > You got me thinking and I'm curious if anyone really knows historically
> how
> > many sites ran a 32V system?   In those days (late 70s/early 80s) the
> > universities that knew and and even many sites inside the Bell System,
> the
> > Vaxen I ran 4.1BSD (say the Marx's brothers at Whippany along with the
> Vax
> > in the underseas research lab were we put the AP I did for my thesis).
> > There were a couple in Summit I know, and probably Homdel and I'm
> guessing
> > in some of the operating companies, but I never got the feeling 32V was
> > popular.  The folks with Vaxen that I knew, if you were able to run BSD
> > (4.1 and eventually 4.2), did.  Later on the only non-'pure-joy' systems
> I
> > knew were a couple of Ultrix systems because they wanted the support from
> > DEC and IIRC were using FORTRAN and wanted the DEC compiler which only
> ran
> > on Ultrix or VMS.  Inside of AT&T, I personally think I knew more folks
> > with VMS (Fortran being the key anchor)  than those that ran 32V.
> > ???
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                  lm at mcvoy.com
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
>