Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdics!wallen
From: wallen@sdics.UUCP (Mark Wallen)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Pyramid system design
Message-ID: <226@sdics.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jul-86 02:56:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdics.226
Posted: Wed Jul 30 02:56:45 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Aug-86 05:43:45 EDT
References: <1759@brl-smoke.ARPA> <976@decuac.DEC.COM> <459@oracle.UUCP> <5431@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <5561@sun.uucp> <5446@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: wallen@sdics.UUCP (Mark Wallen)
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science
Lines: 12

I can think of two other reasons why Pyramid may have chosen
to implement two complete sets of utilities (i.e., 4.2 ones and
sysV ones).  The first is the porting cost; if you REALLY have
a sysV system, why screw around with a 4.2 utility?  Just bring
up the sysV one.  And visa versa.  The second is a little
recursive, but: what better way to test a sysV port that to bring
up (by simply compiling) it's idiosyncratic utilites (e.g., uucp);
if they work, you have a sysV port.  If not, ???

Mark Wallen

UC San Diego