Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!MRC%PANDA@sumex-aim.arpa
From: MRC%PANDA@sumex-aim.arpa (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX-WIZARDS Digest  V2#062
Message-ID: <2128@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 1-Feb-86 14:39:56 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2128
Posted: Sat Feb  1 14:39:56 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Feb-86 04:56:59 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 22


     You can't really blame DEC for the lack of TU81 support in
System V and 4.2/3BSD.  You do, however, have a point about
Ultrix.  DEC has done this [delaying the introduction of products
for systems they are trying to kill off] many many times before.
In PDP-10 days, this happened over a period of 7 years, and
spanned the delay or cancellation of new CPU's, the delay in new
peripherals, the delay of compilers to support up-to-date
language specifications, and finally the cancellation of the
entire product line (in spite of howls of protest).

     Fortunately, those sites with Unix have a choice; they can
vote with their feet to other vendors.  It's important whenever
dealing with DEC that you make it clear that reliability is one
of the most important characteristics in a vendor.

     In the meantime, I don't see what is so hard about writing a
device driver for the TU81.  Tape drives are tape drives.  A good
hacker should be able to knock off a nerdly tape drive device
driver in a day or so, and a good (fully compatible) one in a
week at most.
-------