Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!dual!fair
From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: info on Unix-lookalikes
Message-ID: <928@dual.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 20:16:24 EST
Article-I.D.: dual.928
Posted: Tue Feb  5 20:16:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 04:50:29 EST
References: <445@topaz.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 29

In my experience, compatibles aren't.

My one extensive experience with a ``compatible'' was Charles River
Data System Universe 68  with their UNOS operating system (the
particular version of which was claimed to be System V compatible).
UNOS for those who do not know, was reverse engineered from V6 UNIX.
To me, ``compatible'' means that if I take an application from System
V, it will compile and run on the system with minimal changes. The
particular application made extensive use of the System V tty driver,
which UNOS didn't even have any compatability for, and I had a tough time
getting the sucker to work.

The other system I've looked at briefly is Idris, which is also
(originally) reverse engineered from V6, and seemed to be missing a lot
of the typical UNIX utilities when I looked (this was a *very* cursory
glance at a show, however, so this in no way can be considered
definitive).

There are other compatibles out there that I have not looked at (e.g.
COHERENT from Mark Williams & Co.).

In my opinion, if what you want is UNIX, don't waste time with the
``compatibles.''

	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA

	dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA
	{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!fair
	Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California