Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Why Unix is good (was Re: Unix bigotry) LONG
Message-ID: <7589@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 89 18:25:46 GMT
References: <117@spectra.COM> <692@cvbnet2.UUCP> <3101@ficc.uu.net> <285@bnr-fos.UUCP> <7911@boring.cwi.nl>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 21

In article <7911@boring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes:
>
>The real-world issue is not portability of the kernel but portability
>of user programs.

	Amen.  However, the easiest way to assure portability
	of user programs is to have a portable kernel.  In the
	case of UNIX, also a portable hierachy of things
	in /etc, /dev, /usr/adm, /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, 
	/usr/contrib/bin, /lib, /usr/lib, /man, /usr/local/man,
	etc. ad nauseum.  ... And don't forget whether your setup
	is for sh, csh, ksh, tcsh, ... 

	UNIX's architecture fosters incompatibility by migrating
	a lot of functions out of the kernel to levels where users
	have to deal with them.


----------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@isi.edu