From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave@horsfall.org (Dave Horsfall) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 01:45:18 +1100 (EST) Subject: [TUHS] System III - TCP/IP In-Reply-To: <20151108071102.GA7290@mcvoy.com> References: <20151107200358.Horde.M1lYZZyTC4t0Qb8KrygKzhy@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <20151107192043.GA11895@mcvoy.com> <1C0DB3B7-988D-435F-A590-6C0AB14249A3@gewt.net> <20151108071102.GA7290@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015, Larry McVoy wrote: > Just getting back to email (spent the day taking pictures at a hockey > tournament). A typical Canadian :-) There is only one game, and it's called Cricket; where else can you see a sport that can take five days, and ends up in a draw? [...] > I tend to agree with whoever said 2.11BSD. If you have to do 16 bit and > you want all the goodies, 2.11BSD is where you want to be. Back porting > all that stuff to System III really makes me ask the question of "why?". > Why bother? I get that it could be like a mountain you want to climb, > if that's the case, cool. But I never saw System III as much of a cool > mountain. I think there were some cool parts, didn't the PWB and DWB > come form System III? If so, those where the things I'd want to have > ported forward. Other than that, what's the System III attraction? I thought PWB (makers of "make") came from Harvard? Other than that, Sys III/V was presented by suits; enough said. System III was, well, what System V was going to be like... It never had TCP/IP, only BNU (i.e. UUCP with a jazzed-up name). Gahh... I still have flash-backs to that awful "cu" command, Perhaps it's my experience with Lionel Singer et al, but I really learned to hate SysIII/V... > If you actually have a need to have this work and have networking then > once again Clem has the right idea, grab one of those boards. (And once > again I want to meet Clem in person, lot of love for the Masscomp work > and all his stories). Indeed. -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."