[TUHS] SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[TUHS] SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[segaloco via TUHS]

Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
from both parties as well as other improvements.

I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
appreciable difference?

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Clem Cole via TUHS]

My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better sources
but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was not a
reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost was
the work SunOS had done in the memory system. I never knew for sure, but I
think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put back
in.

For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4 still
was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4 had
dtrace which was a huge advantage.

 I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
(finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2. Interestingly
enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
users/customers installed the Gnu family.

Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual


On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:

> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> from both parties as well as other improvements.
>
> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> appreciable difference?
>
> - Matt G.
>

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Charles H. Sauer (he/him) via TUHS]

I assume Larry and others can be definitive about the inside Sun 
perspective on this regarding SPARC, but I hope someone can say more 
with regards to X86. I remain curious about how/why Zander et al wanted 
the Dell SVR4 team involved. Michael told me of discussions he had with 
McNealy, but I still don't see how it could have worked for either 
company. Charlie

On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better sources
> but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was not a
> reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost was
> the work SunOS had done in the memory system. I never knew for sure, but I
> think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
> AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put back
> in.
> 
> For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4 still
> was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4 had
> dtrace which was a huge advantage.
> 
>   I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
> (finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
> generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2. Interestingly
> enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
> users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> 
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
> 
>> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
>> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
>> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
>> from both parties as well as other improvements.
>>
>> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
>> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
>> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
>> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
>> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
>> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
>> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
>> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
>> appreciable difference?
>>
>> - Matt G.
>>

-- 
voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer@technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to: CharlesHSauer

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Clem Cole via TUHS]

I know that a large amount of x86 was done by NCR with their Unix team in
Columbia, SC.  That was partly because NCR had already been heavily
involved in the m88k support for SVR3 (their m88k system was cancelled when
they switched to be Intel only across their product line).

Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual


On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:43 PM Charles H. Sauer (he/him) via TUHS <
tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:

> I assume Larry and others can be definitive about the inside Sun
> perspective on this regarding SPARC, but I hope someone can say more
> with regards to X86. I remain curious about how/why Zander et al wanted
> the Dell SVR4 team involved. Michael told me of discussions he had with
> McNealy, but I still don't see how it could have worked for either
> company. Charlie
>
> On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> > My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better sources
> > but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was
> not a
> > reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost
> was
> > the work SunOS had done in the memory system. I never knew for sure, but
> I
> > think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
> > AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put back
> > in.
> >
> > For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4 still
> > was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> > pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4 had
> > dtrace which was a huge advantage.
> >
> >   I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
> > (finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
> > generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2. Interestingly
> > enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
> > users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> >
> > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> >> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> >> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> >> from both parties as well as other improvements.
> >>
> >> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> >> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> >> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> >> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> >> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> >> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> >> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> >> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> >> appreciable difference?
> >>
> >> - Matt G.
> >>
>
> --
> voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer@technologists.com
> fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
> Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to
> <https://technologists.com/sauer/Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to>:
> CharlesHSauer
>
>

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Warner Losh via TUHS]

Solaris 2.0 beta came with a compiler only smart enough to build the kernel
from mostly .o files. I don't know if it was a stripped K&R or what. Hello
world didn't build, but i don't recall why.

A separate disk had the sunpro compiler on it.

Gnu didn't catch up until 2.1 iirc.

Large parts were stock svr4. Solbourne never had a stable version of
Solaris 2. We were short on cash after doing SMP for sunos 4.0 and 4.1...

Sadly i can't read,the solaris 2.0 beta cd i have.

Warner

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 8:36 PM Clem Cole via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:

> I know that a large amount of x86 was done by NCR with their Unix team in
> Columbia, SC.  That was partly because NCR had already been heavily
> involved in the m88k support for SVR3 (their m88k system was cancelled when
> they switched to be Intel only across their product line).
>
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:43 PM Charles H. Sauer (he/him) via TUHS <
> tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> > I assume Larry and others can be definitive about the inside Sun
> > perspective on this regarding SPARC, but I hope someone can say more
> > with regards to X86. I remain curious about how/why Zander et al wanted
> > the Dell SVR4 team involved. Michael told me of discussions he had with
> > McNealy, but I still don't see how it could have worked for either
> > company. Charlie
> >
> > On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> > > My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better
> sources
> > > but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was
> > not a
> > > reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost
> > was
> > > the work SunOS had done in the memory system. I never knew for sure,
> but
> > I
> > > think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
> > > AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put
> back
> > > in.
> > >
> > > For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4
> still
> > > was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> > > pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4
> had
> > > dtrace which was a huge advantage.
> > >
> > >   I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
> > > (finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
> > > generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2.
> Interestingly
> > > enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
> > > users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> > >
> > > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> > >> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> > >> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> > >> from both parties as well as other improvements.
> > >>
> > >> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> > >> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> > >> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> > >> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> > >> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> > >> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> > >> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> > >> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> > >> appreciable difference?
> > >>
> > >> - Matt G.
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer@technologists.com
> > fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
> > Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to
> > <https://technologists.com/sauer/Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to>:
> > CharlesHSauer
> >
> >
>

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via TUHS]

> Interestingly enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers
>suite many end users/customers installed the Gnu family.

Sun's unbundling of the compilers drove thousands to install
gcc, single-handedly bootstrapping GNU into the mainstream.

--lyndon

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Dan Cross via TUHS]

I work daily with a descendent of Solaris, and with some folks who
were involved from pretty early on, so I can speak to some of this.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:45 PM Clem Cole via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
> My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better sources
> but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was not a
> reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost was
> the work SunOS had done in the memory system.

I think two of Sun's bigger contributions to SVR4 were vnodes and
mmap, which necessarily involve the VM system.  There was a book on
Solaris performance tuning (I think) published by Sun that came out
around the time that Solaris was really gaining momentum that
suggested something like 80% of the VM code was shared with SunOS 4;
whether that made it into SVR4 or not I don't know.  If only the plans
to donate the SunOS VM system to BSD hadn't fallen through!

My own recollection was that Solaris became approximately usable with
2.4, decent with 2.5, and "pretty good" with 2.5.1.  2.6 was the first
release where I didn't immediately miss SunOS 4.  My sense was that
the earlier, pre-2.4, releases were buggy, slow, and generally
unusable.  Perhaps that's uncharitable, but that's what it seemed
like; I recall that extreme resistance to Solaris 2 led to the SunOS
4.1.3_U1 and 4.1.4 releases.  I'm sure it's apocryphal, but someone at
the time told me that "U1" was for "you won", as in "ok, you won; we
did another SunOS release."

> I never knew for sure, but I
> think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
> AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put back
> in.

I thought that was mainly for conformance with SVID or something?
SunOS 4 had what felt like a really nicely polished user experience,
but Solaris felt a lot more archaic.  My example was always, `awk`: on
SunOS 4, this was nawk.  On Solaris 2, it was the old 7th Ed awk (and
now we had to remember to run `nawk` to get "new" awk).  Things like
that struck me as backwards and weird.

> For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4 still
> was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads.

I seem to recall that pthreads came a bit later?  Solaris used (and
probably still uses; illumos definitely does) kernel-managed LWPs as
the underlying thread primitives for both its own libthread and
pthreads.  I believe that LWPs in turn came from SunOS, though I may
well be wrong there; the Goodheart and Cox book on SVR4 internals only
mentions LWPs in one place that I saw, and mentions ucontext as the
preferred mechanism for building user threads; a paper by Powell et al
from winter USENIX '91 ("SunOS Multi-thread Architecture") says the
name is derivative of a similarly named library for user-only threads
from SunOS 4.0 ("The LWPs in this document are fundamentally different
than the LWP library in SunOS 4.0. Lack of imagination and a desire to
conform to generally accepted terminology lead us to use the same
name"), and that the POSIX spec wasn't quite ready at the time they
did the work.  Note that they don't really say what "accepted
terminology" means here.

My understanding was that the Solaris sockets compatibility library
was initially layered on top of STREAMS, but that they eventually put
it back into the kernel.

> Also I don’t remember if SVR4 had dtrace which was a huge advantage.

I know for sure that Dtrace came much later in the Solaris timeline
(Solaris 9 or thereabouts), and was definitely not in SVR4. Bryan and
Adam did a podcast on its inception and development not too long ago:
https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/dtrace-at-20

>  I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
> (finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
> generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2. Interestingly
> enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
> users/customers installed the Gnu family.

I remember being deeply disappointed by this when Solaris took over
from SunOS4 and earlier: now you had to buy the compilers, and they
weren't cheap.

SunOS at least came with _a_ compiler, though granted it only accepted
pre-ANSI C (I assume it was pcc based and mostly intended for linking
the kernel). Foks installed GCC and many of the GNU tools to get
something a bit more up-to-date.

        - Dan C.

> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
> > Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> > before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> > joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> > from both parties as well as other improvements.
> >
> > I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> > SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> > release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> > value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> > beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> > between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> > purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> > in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> > appreciable difference?

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Rob Gingell via TUHS]

On 11/11/25 6:04 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> release identical to USL SVR4, ...
No, Solaris 2 was never just SVR4. Solaris 2/SunOS 5.x was built from 
SVR4 but included things that were part of the SunOS/Solaris product 
evolution outside of SVR4. One example would be SunOS 4.x binary 
compatibility.

Like a lot of vendors the product Sun shipped its customers was never 
just the base technology Sun licensed from BSD or AT&T.

On 11/11/25 6:04 PM, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> ...System V Release 4 was a
> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> from both parties as well as other improvements.
Yes, a joint effort that from the Sun perspective was "in addition to" 
the product we were creating for our customers. Not unrelated of course 
but done in parallel with getting SunOS 4.0 and then 4.1 out, shipping 
new hardware, and supporting a rapidly growing installed base 
contemporaneously.

At the risk of being redundant with previous postings, for background, 
the "joint efforts" between Sun and AT&T had 3 phases:

Phase 1: Sun produces a product that "can be" SVID-compliant. That was 
SunOS 4.1.

Phase 2: produce SVR4. Incorporate 4.2 BSD and the major Sun 
technologies (memory management, dynamic linking, NFS) through SunOS 
4.0. Sun expected to ship SunOS 5.0 based on SVR4.

Phase 3: future stuff. Overtaken by events and abandoned. The Spring 
Research OS in SunLabs came out it.

The marketing transition to Solaris occurred after all this was in 
motion out of rationales that weren't related to the joint work.

On 11/11/25 6:35 PM, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> Remember Sparc was not a
> reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). 

True. But, for context, a leading point of the announced plan between 
AT&T and Sun was that AT&T's Data Systems Group planned to ship a 
platform consisting of "Unified System V" and SPARC processors. And 
while of less interest to this audience, that plan, and less so the 
software work that enabled it as discussed here, was the big deal as 
viewed by the executives.

Also, the ABI's were introduced with SVR4 and SPARC was one of those 
(along with x86 and 3B's), and was partly in service to the notion of 
"platforms" as accompanied the announcement.

That platform idea was, for AT&T, another thing overtaken by events but 
it was a key factor in bringing the joint efforts together.

> The big thing Solaris lost was
> the work SunOS had done in the memory system. 

No, that and dynamic linking were taken from SunOS and included in SVR4. 
No loss at all and they were arguably improved in the process, for 
example the transition to ELF cleaned up some contortions 4.x had 
incurred by choosing not to change the object file format in 4.x.

USL managed a pretty difficult SVR4 project in working jointly with Sun, 
and the other licensees, to juggle all our competing demands and 
constraints. That they did that while also overriding their own just 
released technologies like SVR3 shared libraries, and then improving the 
net result by introducing new technologies, like ELF, was pretty 
impressive and generally under-appreciated.

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Alan Coopersmith via TUHS]

On 11/11/25 18:04, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> from both parties as well as other improvements.
> 
> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> appreciable difference?

I didn't join Sun until years later, but I do still have access to the
source archives for both SVR4 & Solaris 2.0 and can confirm they are
very much not the same.  (A quick recursive diff shows over 5000
source files modified, and over 6000 added in Solaris 2.0 - though
some of those may have come from other USL sources like the Documenter's
Workbench.  There were also a bunch removed, like all the 3b2 architecture
support.)

Sun additions appear to include things like the /usr/ucb commands and
libraries for SunOS 4 compatibility, the snoop command, sendmail, DNS,
NIS/NFS/RPC, nsswitch, and of course, lots of SPARC architecture support.

-- 
         -Alan Coopersmith-                 alan.coopersmith@oracle.com
          Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Alan Coopersmith via TUHS]

On 11/11/25 18:35, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4 still
> was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4 had
> dtrace which was a huge advantage.

Wasn't much of that in later releases?  I don't see any user-space thread
libraries in Solaris 2.0 - libthread (based on Unix International APIs) was
added in 2.2 and libpthread in 2.5.

And of course DTrace was introduced in the 2000's, demoed a couple years
before it officially shipped in Solaris 10 in 2005.

-- 
         -Alan Coopersmith-                 alan.coopersmith@oracle.com
          Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/solaris

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Larry McVoy via TUHS]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:52:54AM -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via TUHS wrote:
> > Interestingly enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers
> >suite many end users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> 
> Sun's unbundling of the compilers drove thousands to install
> gcc, single-handedly bootstrapping GNU into the mainstream.

And the funny thing was Michael Tiemann worked for Sun and did G++ while
working for Sun and arranged that his work was GPLed.  Sun was not perfect
but they did some good for the world.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Alexander Schreiber via TUHS]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:52:54AM -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via TUHS wrote:
> > Interestingly enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers
> >suite many end users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> 
> Sun's unbundling of the compilers drove thousands to install
> gcc, single-handedly bootstrapping GNU into the mainstream.

Finding myself on HP-UX 11 with the bundled cc just being a K&R one (because
of course a proper compiler (called the ANSI C++ compiler by HP) did cost
a pretty penny) I very quickly grabbed gcc as well. But that was in the
early 2000s, so gcc was already _very_ firmly in the mainstream.

Kind regards,
           Alex.
-- 
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
 looks like work."                                      -- Thomas A. Edison

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Warner Losh via TUHS]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025, 9:30 AM Alexander Schreiber via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:52:54AM -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
> via TUHS wrote:
> > > Interestingly enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers
> > >suite many end users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> >
> > Sun's unbundling of the compilers drove thousands to install
> > gcc, single-handedly bootstrapping GNU into the mainstream.
>
> Finding myself on HP-UX 11 with the bundled cc just being a K&R one
> (because
> of course a proper compiler (called the ANSI C++ compiler by HP) did cost
> a pretty penny) I very quickly grabbed gcc as well. But that was in the
> early 2000s, so gcc was already _very_ firmly in the mainstream.
>

Gcc was in the main stream in the late 80s. It produced better code for
vax, mips and 68k machines than the stock DEC and SUN compilers, and
enabled both 386BSD and Linux rise in the early 1990s. Sun's unbundling
just added fuel to the fire when they started SUNWpro in 91. C++ didn't
start to be diminated by g++ until maybe 1995 or a bit later. Prior to that
the vendor sold compilers were better than g++... even the cfront ones.

Though that's my highly subjective views based on my trip through the 80s
and 90s.

Warner

Kind regards,
>            Alex.
> --
> "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
>  looks like work."                                      -- Thomas A. Edison
>

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Arno Griffioen via TUHS]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 05:25:43PM +0100, Alexander Schreiber via TUHS wrote:
> Finding myself on HP-UX 11 with the bundled cc just being a K&R one (because
> of course a proper compiler (called the ANSI C++ compiler by HP) did cost
> a pretty penny) I very quickly grabbed gcc as well. But that was in the
> early 2000s, so gcc was already _very_ firmly in the mainstream.

I remember carrying a stack of floppies in various sizes and some QIC
tapes in the early 90's with GCC and tools on it in various binary
formats when doing lots of work on customer SCO machines and other less
well-known UNIX machines aimed more at business users.

Getting GCC working on a bare machine like that from source on-site was a
pain as they had usually un-bundled the 'real' C compiler(s) for years,
so a stack of floppies with binary images made earlier in our office
was a lot more convenient.

Most of my work back then was getting a lot of sites on that thing called
the internet (probably never going to amount to anything anyway ;) )
at least on UUCP/dialup and such, so having GCC and then being able
to compile all the other bits like a decent UUCP, sendmail, etc. was
a godsend.

The UNIX landscape at the time was a factured mess of vendor
implementations and platforms on both the HW and SW side, but I do miss it
sometimes as it did have it's very interesting brain teasers as a result.

Not to mention a lot of these 'business' oriented UNIX system vendors
liked to also play silly games on I/O by messing with standards to hope
to lock customers in, so getting an off-the-shelf US-Robotics or Telebit
Trailblazer working right with proper HW handshaking usually involved
soldering irons and sometimes diode magic.. (looking at you ICL...)

							Bye, Arno.

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Daria Phoebe Brashear via TUHS]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 8:14 PM Rob Gingell via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>

> Phase 2: produce SVR4. Incorporate 4.2 BSD and the major Sun
> technologies (memory management, dynamic linking, NFS) through SunOS
> 4.0. Sun expected to ship SunOS 5.0 based on SVR4.
>
> Phase 3: future stuff. Overtaken by events and abandoned. The Spring
> Research OS in SunLabs came out it.
>
> The marketing transition to Solaris occurred after all this was in
> motion out of rationales that weren't related to the joint work.

Does a copy of Spring exist somewhere? For reasons I no longer
remember we failed to get a copy after talking about it when I worked
for Carnegie Mellon (it certainly wasn't an issue of money or
licensing; we had Solaris 2.4 source, for instance: i was the keeper
of the CDs)

I vaguely remember Bryan saying he had a copy like 5 years ago but I
don't recall anything coming of it.

-- 
Daria Phoebe Brashear
AuriStor, Inc
dariaphoebe.com

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 10:17, Daria Phoebe Brashear via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 8:14 PM Rob Gingell via TUHS tuhs@tuhs.org wrote:
> 
> > Phase 2: produce SVR4. Incorporate 4.2 BSD and the major Sun
> > technologies (memory management, dynamic linking, NFS) through SunOS
> > 4.0. Sun expected to ship SunOS 5.0 based on SVR4.
> > 
> > Phase 3: future stuff. Overtaken by events and abandoned. The Spring
> > Research OS in SunLabs came out it.
> > 
> > The marketing transition to Solaris occurred after all this was in
> > motion out of rationales that weren't related to the joint work.
> 
> 
> Does a copy of Spring exist somewhere? For reasons I no longer
> remember we failed to get a copy after talking about it when I worked
> for Carnegie Mellon (it certainly wasn't an issue of money or
> licensing; we had Solaris 2.4 source, for instance: i was the keeper
> of the CDs)
> 
> I vaguely remember Bryan saying he had a copy like 5 years ago but I
> don't recall anything coming of it.
> 
> --
> Daria Phoebe Brashear
> AuriStor, Inc
> dariaphoebe.com

Well the gist I'm getting from all of this discussion is that
indeed USL and Sun collaborated on what would become SVR4, but
they did not precisely land on one unified product between the
two organizations, rather, Sun contributed to the development of
SVR4, took that combined product, then further lumped their own
stuff on top before then marketing it as Solaris.

In other words, Solaris is SVR4, but SVR4 is not necessarily
Solaris, and Sun did additional work on their value-add rather
than also jointly considering virgin SVR4 their product. That's
what I take away from this discussion anyway.

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Kevin Bowling via TUHS]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:25 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 10:17, Daria Phoebe Brashear via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 8:14 PM Rob Gingell via TUHS tuhs@tuhs.org wrote:
> >
> > > Phase 2: produce SVR4. Incorporate 4.2 BSD and the major Sun
> > > technologies (memory management, dynamic linking, NFS) through SunOS
> > > 4.0. Sun expected to ship SunOS 5.0 based on SVR4.
> > >
> > > Phase 3: future stuff. Overtaken by events and abandoned. The Spring
> > > Research OS in SunLabs came out it.
> > >
> > > The marketing transition to Solaris occurred after all this was in
> > > motion out of rationales that weren't related to the joint work.
> >
> >
> > Does a copy of Spring exist somewhere? For reasons I no longer
> > remember we failed to get a copy after talking about it when I worked
> > for Carnegie Mellon (it certainly wasn't an issue of money or
> > licensing; we had Solaris 2.4 source, for instance: i was the keeper
> > of the CDs)
> >
> > I vaguely remember Bryan saying he had a copy like 5 years ago but I
> > don't recall anything coming of it.
> >
> > --
> > Daria Phoebe Brashear
> > AuriStor, Inc
> > dariaphoebe.com
>
> Well the gist I'm getting from all of this discussion is that
> indeed USL and Sun collaborated on what would become SVR4, but
> they did not precisely land on one unified product between the
> two organizations, rather, Sun contributed to the development of
> SVR4, took that combined product, then further lumped their own
> stuff on top before then marketing it as Solaris.
>
> In other words, Solaris is SVR4, but SVR4 is not necessarily
> Solaris, and Sun did additional work on their value-add rather
> than also jointly considering virgin SVR4 their product. That's
> what I take away from this discussion anyway.

I'm not sure if we have any USL/Univel/Novell or SCO people but it
would be interesting to get their takes on this as well.  Early
UnixWare would've been close to vanilla SVR4.0, but it seems like
there were still redistributable source projects like SVR4.1 and
SVR4.2 that went out to vendors that shipped fairly vanilla SVR4 like
Dell, Intel, Microport, UHC, ESIX, NCR and whomever wanted to lift
parts into their existing OSes.

> - Matt G.