From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d7a867ffb6adbb0cd384a393db37b636@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] new compilers
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 2006 11:39:48 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <7C916E70-3B54-4509-BBFB-0B86EC5F7372@orthanc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2d43ddc8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> Professionals, maybe, but backyard hackers had little reason to care.
>
> But the pro's had the commercial distributions; I don't think it
> really mattered to them.  (I had Irix and Solaris (and SCO :-P) at
> work.  My interest in *BSD was to have something I could experiment
> with outside of my day job.)
>
I guess we are in agreement, Linux and the BSDs were the hackers'
options.  Minix was, too.

>> Linux had no graphics (nor had the BSDs)
>
> I don't think that's true.  X11 was around and reasonably portable.
> (BSDi had it in the alpha and beta releases circa 1993.)
>
Well, it had X before TCP/IP, which originally was...

>> and KA9Q as networking
>
> Phil's code had a narrow audience at the time.

By some measure, sure, but I ran a dial-in Internet access service
using a (badly) hacked PPP module in KA9Q.  Someone even released a
local version of KA9Q as a South African product, in contravention of
its licence.  Within my circle of Internet "heads", KA9Q was all the
rage.  And Bdale Garbee (sp?)'s manual.doc is still my recommendation
to learn the fundamentals of TCP/IP.  Not that anyone has listened to
my recommendation :-(

Funny, you could download Linux over the 'Net, but you could not
connect with it.  It took Win'95, in my environment, to popularise the
'Net.

I think X was a bit of a toy until TCP/IP became a reality, porting X
without TCP/IP deedn't seem any easier than running *BSD without
TCP/IP.  Possible, but not easy.

++L