Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!unisoft!fai!ronc
From: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: why no native unix??
Message-ID: <1466@fai.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 89 21:27:39 GMT
References: <8901061437.AA06662@richter.mit.edu>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.fai.com (Ronald O. Christian)
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <8901061437.AA06662@richter.mit.edu> krowitz@RICHTER.MIT.EDU (David Krowitz) writes:
>Here is my real gripe with Unix purists -- as shown by this discussion ...
>anytime anyone (Apollo, DEC, HP ...) makes an extension to improve the
>capabilities of their system they are criticized for not being "standard".
>It doesn't matter that the extension can be ignored -- they not only
>want their programs to run exactly as they do on a VAX 11/780 running
>BSD4.3, they want them to *fail* exactly the same way.

This is wrong.  My main point continues to be that in some areas, even
in the celebrated SR10, you can *not* ignore the extension.  You *must*
live with it.  The standard answer to this is "gee the extension is
soooo wonderful you must be a real putz not to want it".  Pfui.

Here's an example:  Dump(8) is on the BSD tape, but is not included on
the Apollo.  We have over an hundred machines running dump, and two that
don't. (The apollos.)  Rbak is only one example of an extension I can
not ignore.

This is not "being a purist".  This is complaining about a company
providing "Unix" with parts missing.



				Ron
-- 

      Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
      {amdahl, pyramid, sun, unisoft, uunet}!fai!ronc -or- ronc@fai.com