Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: SVR3.0 vs BSD4.3
Message-ID: <7499@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 20 Mar 88 05:32:48 GMT
References: <12414@brl-adm.ARPA> <4361@megaron.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 50

In article <4361@megaron.arizona.edu> lm@megaron.arizona.edu (Larry McVoy) writes:
>>   From: Doug Gwyn  <gwyn@brl-smoke.arpa>
>>   SVR3.0 is the first AT&T UNIX system release that I would rate as
>>   technically the equal of, or superior to, 4.nBSD on all major counts.
>I missed the opener on this one; are you really serious, Doug?

Of course I'm serious.  Consider:
	modular region-based virtual memory manager
	shared libraries
	file system switch
	transparent networked file system
	STREAMS
	network interface library
	record locking
	reliable signals
	windowing utilities
	HDB UUCP
in addition to things already found in earlier releases of UNIX System V:
	usable system interface specification document
	faster, more complete standard C library
	somewhat better C compiler
	COFF
	FIFOs
	terminfo
	shell layers
	shared memory
	semaphores
	message passing
	process locking
	vendor support

Berkeley's system has equivalents to some of these, no equivalents to
others, and includes some things like LISP (not Common LISP) and rogue
not found in AT&T's system.  Berkeley's terminal handler is nicer-
looking to the user but not as good for the application programmer.
BSD-style job control is somewhat nicer for the user than shell layers,
but this is not available in their Bourne shell.  And so on...

When we acquired our first VAX, we had to decide which flavor of UNIX
to run on it.  We identified three reasons to prefer the Berkeley variant:
	TCP/IP network support
	virtual memory for large applications
	compatibility for importing sources from other sites,
		particularly from the Alpha_1 project (which
		for example relied heavily on flexnames).
The only one of these that might still be a factor is the latter,
but our level of concern with importing a single specific application
is much lower now, and in any case that is not a matter of technical
superiority.  Portability considerations are much more important, and
UNIX System V is much closer to meeting useful standards than 4BSD.