Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Tektronix Network News Daemon (B 2.10.2 based); site daemon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!daemon!davest
From: davest@daemon.UUCP (Dave Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases
Message-ID: <964@daemon.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 12:27:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: daemon.964
Posted: Thu Jul 18 12:27:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 03:25:37 EDT
References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: davest@daemon.UUCP (Dave Stewart)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 19
Xref: linus net.micro.att:284 net.unix-wizards:11094

In article <2423@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>> ... We do a good job by making darn sure
>> that what we do doesn't break something (like a shell script or worse) and
>> that we spend our efforts spending resources on the most important/needed
>> enhancements first.
>
>By implication that puts all commercial vendors of 4.2BSD systems
>in the "unstable computing environment business"?

	There are also plenty of examples where AT&T adds a BSD feature,
but changes the command or system call name or syntax.  Isn't that
referred to as the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome?  When will AT&T
(and DEC for that matter) realize that UC Berkeley is NOT a competitor?

Stepping down from his soapbox ...
-- 
David C. Stewart                          uucp:    tektronix!davest
Small Systems Support Group               csnet:   davest@TEKTRONIX
Tektronix, Inc.                           phone:   (503) 627-5418