The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Subject: [TUHS] Re: Release 5.0 Vs. System V
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:03:44 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

It's not surprising that System V branding occurred pre-divestiture.
Remember that they were already marketing System III circa 1980.

As I've mentioned before, when I saw the UNIX 4.0 system in 1981, I was told
that the Bell System ran the current version and released the earlier
one publicly.  Knowledge of the upcoming divestiture apparently caused
someone to decide to just make the internal and external releases the same.

Dunno if this helps. :-)


segaloco via TUHS <> wrote:

> Good morning all, currently trying to sort out one matter that still
> bewilders me with this documentation I'm working on scanning.
> So I've got two copies of the "Release 5.0" User's Manual and one copy of
> the "System V" User's Manual.  I haven't identified the exact differences,
> lots of pages...but they certainly are not identical, there are at least
> a few commands in one and not the other.
> Given this, and past discussion, it's obvious Release 5.0 is the internal
> UNIX version that became System V, but what I'm curious about is if it was
> ever released publicly as "Release 5.0" before being branded as System V
> or if the name was System V from the moment the first commercial license
> was issued.
> The reason I wonder this is some inconsistencies in the documentation I
> see out there.  So both of my Release 5.0 User's Manuals have the Bell
> logo on the front and no mention of the court order to cease using it.
> Likewise, all but one of the System V related documents I received
> recently contain a Bell logo on the cover next to Western Electric save
> for the Opeartor's Guide which curiously doesn't exhibit the front page
> divestiture message that other documents missing the Bell logo include.
> Furthermore, the actual cover sheet says "Operator's Guide UNIX System
> Release 5.0" so technically not System V. In fact, only the User's
> Manual, Administrator's Manual, Error Message Manual, Transition Aids,
> and Release Description specifically say System V, all the rest don't
> have a version listed but some list Release 5.0 on their title page.
> Furthering that discrepancy is this which I just purchased:|parentrq%3A47906e531830a0adef7482b3fffe1682|iid%3A1
> Link lives as of this sending, but contains a closed auction for an Error
> Message Manual from the "Release 5.0" documentation line but no Bell logo.
> Until the Operator's Guide and this auction link, I haven't seen any
> "Release 5.0" branded stuff without a Bell logo, and before I bought
> the System V gold set, I hadn't seen System V branded stuff *with*
> the Bell logo.
> This shatters an assumption that I had made that at the same time the
> documentation branding shifted to System V was the same time the removal
> of the Bell logo happened, given that divestiture was what allowed them
> to aggressively market System V, but now this presents four distinct
> sets of System V gold documentation:
> Release 5.0 w/ Bell logo
> Release 5.0 w/o Bell logo
> System V w/ Bell logo
> System V w/o Bell logo
> I'm curious if anyone would happen to know what the significance here is.
> The covers are all printed, I can't see any indication that a bunch of
> 5.0 manuals were retroactively painted over nor that any System V manuals
> got stamped with a Bell post-production.  What this means is "Release
> 5.0" documentation was being shipped post-divestiture and "System V"
> was being shipped pre-divestiture.  If Release 5.0 was publicly sold as
> System V, then what explains the post-divestiture 5.0 manuals floating
> around in the wild, and vice versa, if USG couldn't effectively market
> and support UNIX until the divestiture, how is it so many "Release 5.0"
> documents are floating around in well produced commercial-quality binding,
> both pre and post-divestiture by the time the name "System V" would've
> been king.  Were they still maintaining an internal 5.x branch past
> System V that warranted its own distinct documentation set even into
> the commercial period?  This period right around '82-'83 is incredibly
> fascinating and I feel very under-documented.
> - Matt G.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-17 18:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-16 18:48 [TUHS] " segaloco via TUHS
2022-09-17 18:03 ` arnold [this message]
2023-01-24 14:09 ` [TUHS] " Jonathan Gray

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).