Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!kd4nc!n4hgf!wht From: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: System V Release 4.0 versus BSD Keywords: UNIX System V Release 4.0 BSD Message-ID: <172@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US> Date: 21 Jul 90 16:38:35 GMT References: <179@mixcom.UUCP> Organization: Amateur Radio Station N4HGF Lines: 89 In article <179@mixcom.UUCP> llxxkk@mixcom wr0te: >I recently told a friend that the Amiga 3000 would soon be running AT&T UNIX >System V Release 4.0, and he said that I would be much better off with a BSD >release. I asked why, and he gave me the following summary: > >quote >What is wrong with Sys V: > > No finger wrong in S5R4, easily fixed in others > No who wrong in all S5 I know of > No what wrong in S5R4, easily fixed in others which is a much more important deficiency than finger, who or what (all of these what user-soothers, except what, are Trivial exercises for the programmer; 'what' is a three-hour effort). > ps works funny (and not nearly as well) in the eye of the beholder > echo is hacked ?????? ----- :^) now this Really is a hingepoint on my OS choice > the csh is not supported worth dog dooky true in the past (csh is not really S5 material); fixed in S5R4 Big Time > stty has not half the options There are enough! > shell scripts execute with the Bourne Shell no matter what wrong in S5R4 > the #! line for scripts is not supported works in S5R4, granted a tedious inconvenience > the csh is crippled (very poor job control) works in S5R4; job control is a hack, though; I like windows or virtual terminals/multiscreens much better > the only alternative to the csh is ksh, a worthless hack on sh I am a csh bigot, but objectively, csh was a _incompatible_ hack on sh and ksh is a _much_ more logical (and script compatible) extension to sh > BSD network niceties are not supported (like telnet) With networking versions, where telnet is useful :-), telnet is Present > >In a nut shell, it sucks. (Why else does Sun ship BSD?) Because they started at divestiture+public_unix_availability + day 1 SunOS is wierd, if you ask me, though not a bad sort, as First Attempts go (SunOS also has most of System V in it). SunOS 4 is much better. >end of quote > >My question is, is he accurate, and if so, do his criticisms apply to Release >4.0? Sounds like your friend might just as well complain similarly about a fast Italian car because the transmission is manual or there is no Delco radio in the dash. How about? 1. BSD has no Streams 2. BSD has no shared memory (the unimplemented mmap does Not count, even though Sun implemented it, we are talking BSD :-)) 3. BSD has no semaphores 4. BSD has no decent tty driver interface (5 structures?; give me a break) 5. BSD has no init/inittab 6. BSD (usually) has no HoneyDanBer UUCP I can write a finger, what, when, why, which, who all in a few hours (have done). I can't fix the BSD deficiencies without a $100,000 investment. Fortunately, I don't have to. I have System V :-|. Of course, the emperor has no clothes, Carter does have little pills, my dog is bigger than your dog, and all *IXes are created differently. And they all get most real work done. S5R4 is the union, at great cost, of the UCB and AT&T worlds. So, you can choose between an emperor with or without clothes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US "It was electrons that brought down the Berlin Wall." -- Timothy Leary