Re: [TUHS] man Macro Package and pdfmark

[Michael Huff <mphuff@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4549 bytes --]

I've only tried it in virtual machines. It feels slower and more 
sluggish than OpenIndiana (which is based on Illumos, which is the 
post-Oracle open solaris) -but I don't use OI a whole lot either.

Since there's an opening I'm curious about something mentioned earlier 
in the thread, so I'll ask.

It was said earlier that SunOS included a compiler, but it was dropped 
in Solaris. Was it possible for people to carry over the old SunOS 
compiler and use it on Solaris? Did people do that, or did they just 
have their companies spring for the actual Solaris compiler?


On 2/19/2020 9:12 AM, Emile Bye wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> I'm a new member of the list and have been reading quietly in the 
> background.
>
>
> Changing the subject slightly (it's kind of relevant)... Has anyone 
> had a look at the new Solaris?  Apart from it using the Gnome 3 DE 
> which is very sluggish, it's awful!
>
> 11.3 is the last version I'm going to install on anything I've got!  
> (My Sun Blade 2500 will have Solaris 10 though... much better...)
>
> Rant over...
>
> Apologies for being a little off-topic,
>
>
>
> Emile
>> On 19 February 2020 at 18:01 Earl Baugh <earl.baugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What was more frustrating to Sun users was that there WAS a compiler 
>> included in Sun OS,
>> but it went away with Solaris.  I saw a noticeable change in code 
>> available in binary form only after that.
>> At least until the GNU stuff got stable enough to use...
>>
>> (I was a customer of MIke's when he first start Cygnus for support of 
>> the GNU compilers...
>> I was working in a secured facility and multiple times I spoke with 
>> him on the phone typing in patches
>> by hand -- as he relayed them -- because of the time and hassle it 
>> took to get a tape in with the patch...)
>>
>> Earl
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:45 PM Larry McVoy < lm@mcvoy.com 
>> <mailto:lm@mcvoy.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:22:56PM -0800, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>     > At the times I referred to the lack of freely available AT&T
>>     source code
>>     > was extremely limiting in how people viewed the availability of
>>     such
>>     > "add-on" tools for Unix -- including the C compiler!
>>
>>     This wasn't just an AT&T thing, Sun and SGI and everyone charged
>>     for their
>>     C compiler.  I sort of get it, writing a good compiler is up
>>     there with
>>     writing a good kernel in effort, not quite the same, but probably
>>     the
>>     2nd hardest thing to do.  So the compiler people cost a lot,
>>     companies
>>     wanted to get that cost back.
>>
>>     It was stupid.  Having a free compiler meant that more people would
>>     write apps for your platform.   It should have been a loss leader.
>>
>>     > > For folks running binary only systems from
>>     Masscomp/Sun/DEC/HP/IBM and the
>>     > > like, it is possible it was different.
>>     >
>>     > It was _very_ different.
>>     >
>>     > If you weren't out in the trenches of end-user Unix-based
>>     systems at the
>>     > time it may not have been as obvious as to just how restrictive
>>     it was
>>     > to have proprietary fee-based licensing of such add-on
>>     software.  Most
>>     > end-users couldn't even pay their vendors for ditroff -- their
>>     vendors
>>     > didn't want to have to license it from AT&T, even when they had
>>     > advocates inside the companies (e.g. I did some work supporting
>>     software
>>     > for a couple such vendors and was never able to convince
>>     them).  Some,
>>     > as you mention, were all-in, but it wasn't until UNIX System V
>>     Release 4
>>     > became more widely available that systems based on it were more
>>     likely
>>     > to have ditroff, and sometimes (though much more rarely) the
>>     "new" dpost
>>     > post-processor was also included.  I don't know if there were
>>     different
>>     > licensing terms for SysVr4 or not.  Don't get me started on how
>>     hard it
>>     > also was to get some end users to buy a C compiler too.
>>
>>     Yep, lived through this as well.  I fought with Sun to make more
>>     stuff
>>     free for developers, it just didn't make sense to not do that but
>>     the
>>     powers that were didn't get it.
>>
>>     One thing that Sun did do, probably in spite of itself, was fund
>>     Michael Tiemann's work on C++.  He worked out some deal that that
>>     work would be open source and he pretty much made GNU C++ work
>>     for some definition of work (C++ is a mess).
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8362 bytes --]