From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: neozeed@gmail.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:23:41 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] SVR4 x86 -- Sources In-Reply-To: <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> References: <1310483478.7906.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20110712232657.GB31526@bitmover.com> Message-ID: 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 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: