Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jsq
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: recent history of Unix evolution
Message-ID: <17653@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 91 19:31:34 GMT
References: <17405@cs.utexas.edu> <17631@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO
Lines: 24
Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)

sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes, among explanations of OSF
history and status, that:

> OSF/1, simplistically, is the integration of Mach 2.5 microkernel and
> BSD 4.4...

This is incorrect on two counts.  First, Mach 2.5 is not a "microkernel"
implementation--it still contains conventional kernel functions.  The
"microkernel" version of Mach is 3.0.  (However, it *is* correct that OSF/1
is based on the non-"micro"kernel 2.5.)  Second, OSF/1 could not have
integrated BSD 4.4, because BSD 4.4 is not done yet--at least not accor-
ding to the folks at Berkeley!  Probably what is meant here is that OSF/1
has incorporated some of the Berkeley "Reno" code, Reno being the name
attached to a pre-4.4 release of code intended for developers who want to
try it out and shake out the bugs.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.



Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 108