[TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources

From: neozeed@gmail.com (Jason Stevens)
Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:23:41 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+rfG9a--Uj4t1sSSXZwDwjq5Jc_6OXhdjoO0YiSc1hV2v6ZcQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com>

wow and I had thought companies paying eachother out to *NOT* do something
was all the rage today...

It'd make perfect sense, SUN have a loyal user base, so why on earth would
they rock the boat with a religious change.

And then there was that whole SYSV to the Commodore Amiga that SUN tried to
piggy back on.... There had to be a lot more to that then meets the eye.

Not to mention Commodore not letting SUN OEM the Amiga 3000/UX was their
biggest mistake.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:

> "Joint project".  Hmm, I was at Sun at the time, John Pope was across
> the hall from me, he did the SVR4 port to Sun/SPARC.
>
> To call this joint is complete nonsense.  Sun was in a cash bind, AT&T
> wanted to make SVR4 the main Unix platform and SunOS was winning.  The
> story I heard, not widely known, is that AT&T bought a big pile of Sun
> stock at 35% over market - in return for which Sun had to dump their BSD
> based SunOS and go to SVR4.
>
> Biggest mistake Sun ever made in my opinion.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:11:15PM +0200, Michele Ghisolfo wrote:
> > > Contrary to a lot of the distant opinions here,
> > > SVr4 was actually a joint project between USL
> > > (the AT&T commercial-UNIX organization) and Sun.
> > > The intent was to bring together the two different
> > > commercial-UNIX cults (what Stu Feldman once referred
> > > to as Sunni and Shiite UNIX).
> > >
> > > I was at Bell Labs while this was going on, but
> > > well off to the side of the effort, in a research
> > > group where we tended (foolishly) to look down
> > > our noses a bit at the whole thing.  I do know that
> > > there were a lot of ruffled feathers within USL
> > > about the allegedly overbearing Sun guys, and it
> > > wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that there
> > > were similar feelings going the other way.  On
> > > the other hand there were some pretty smart
> > > people involved at a technical level on all
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > Certainly it wasn't a one-way street, with BSD-isms
> > > being injected into a USG system or vice versa.
> > >
> > > Norman Wilson
> > > Toronto ON
> >
> > Thanks, Norman.  This clarify a lot my confusion about SysV.
> >
> > I'm reading the J. Lions Commentary to V6 UNIX, the ancestor of all
> > UNIXes, including SysV (if I understood correctly).  The last Research
> > Unix release was Tenth Edition Unix.  Is the source code of
> > releases 8, 9 and 10 available?  Are there other commentaries of ancient
> > Research Unixes, like Lions book?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   --Michele
> >
> > P.S. to Cyrille: Again, my apologies for the confusion.  I realized my
> > mistake just after I sent the mail.  I'm really sorry!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110712/8aeceb56/attachment.html>