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.rumor
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response (CCI's supermini)
Message-ID: <2332@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 08:56:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2332
Posted: Thu Jun 20 08:56:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Jun-85 23:49:16 EDT
References: <180@cci-bdc.UUCP>, <11900001@prism.UUCP> <116@ccicpg.UUCP> <11264@brl-tgr.ARPA>y, <2296@sun.uucp> <119@ccicpg.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 30

> 	1) As you correctly pointed out, the stuff you did at OSG was
> 	   running first on a VAX, not on 6/32. If a port was started, it
> 	   was never released.

Not only was the port started, but it is now running on "rlgvax" which is a
Power 6/32.

> 	3) The OSG version was used for a couple of ideas while
> 	   porting system 5 to 6/32. However, the final stuff is nowhere
> 	   near the VAX stuff.

Why?  Why re-invent the wheel?

>	    Anyone who looks at our real releases will find it to adhere to
>	    system 5 standards (yes, even the signal numbers and system call
>	    numbers and ....).

Again, why?  The System V Interface definition says nothing about signal
numbers or system call numbers.  The actual numbers assigned are irrelevant.
The OSG system adheres to the S5 Interface Definition as well as System V
Release 2 does; it also supports the System V commands and also supports the
Berkeley commands (except for those which conflict).

> 	4) Trying to tell what the real machine looks like just by telling
> 	   what some VAX looked like in the past is a fruitless
> 	   exercise.

However, a "real" Power 6/32 is running that very OS *now*.

	Guy Harris