Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases
Message-ID: <176@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 12:43:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.176
Posted: Thu Jul 25 12:43:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 01:17:23 EDT
References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> <406@petrus.UUCP> <307@baylor.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 29
Xref: linus net.micro.att:326 net.unix-wizards:11194

> System III.

UNIX 3.0

> System V, consider it standard.

UNIX 5.0 (4.0 was not released for public licensing)

> System V, release 2, from now on consider it standard.

UNIX 6.0, until AT&T decided to establish "UNIX System V" as
a recognized symbol.  Now UNIX 5.2

> System V, release 2, Version 2?

This has been a remarkably upward-compatible evolutionary path.
5.2.2 added demand paging (much cleaner than 4BSD's) and
record locking (more general than either 4BSD or /usr/group)
without visibly changing the semantics of already-existing
facilities.  This is the way it should be.

Both 4BSD and UNIX System V have good and bad points and both
have unnecessarily broken things in new releases.  The main
advantage of System V (notice that "UNIX" is omitted here)
with regard to stability is that all significant commercial
UNIX and C standardization efforts are adhering closely to it
(and vice-versa).

Could we go on to more productive topics?