Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!guy From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.micro.att Subject: Re: AT&T Micro Anouncement Message-ID: <2299@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 03:40:48 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.2299 Posted: Thu Jun 13 03:40:48 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 00:40:56 EDT References: <453@rtech.UUCP> <624@houxu.UUCP> <368@petrus.UUCP> <1087@ihuxn.UUCP> <372@petrus.UUCP> <131@peregrine.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 43 > > > The WE32100 Microprocessor line is a line of full 32-bit > > > (32-bit addressing and 32-bit data paths and registers) machines with > > > a full complement of support chips. Do not confuse these chips with > > > "32 bit" chips that need extra registers to address more than 64K !!! > > The 68K... > This comparison is not fair for two reasons. The original comparison was inaccurate for one reason; the 68K doesn't require extra registers to address more than 64K. > I agree with you that 4.2BSD is nicer for development than System V, but > System V is catching up. It now has demand paging, After 4.xBSD has had it for a couple of years and after several groups have independently implemented it in Systems III and V... > sdb(a symbolic debugger and predecessor of dbx) "sdb" came out with 4.1BSD and System III. The 4.1BSD version is a later release than the System III version, but both were ferociously bug-ridden. It's an ugly implementation of an ugly debugger. "dbx" owes nothing to "sdb" and actually has a syntax that isn't rife with ambiguities. > and many others new features. But *still* no sane networking support! Hint to AT&T: if your releases had more of the facilities needed by vendors and users and didn't wait for a year or two until everybody else already did their own implementations, there would be a lot less variation in UNIX systems out there... (providing that the AT&T implementations aren't as silly as shell layers, for instance). I'd like to see that happen, but I don't see it happening for at least another year or so; meanwhile, the best approach would probably be a System V Interface Definition-compatible system with a full set of 4.2BSD features (not impossible - the S5ID doesn't say what file systems or directories look like). Then again, it's irrelevant to a vs. WE31x00 debate - the WE chips will *not* melt if you build a machine out of them and run 4.2BSD on it.... Guy Harris