Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!rutgers!psuvax1!schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu From: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Future at Berzerkeley Message-ID: <4403@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Date: 26 Mar 89 06:56:35 GMT References: <15184@cup.portal.com> <15407@cup.portal.com> <16230@mimsy.UUCP> <21216@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <13324@steinmetz.ge.com> <28819@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <13428@steinmetz.ge.com> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Reply-To: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Followup-To: comp.unix.questions Organization: Pennsylvania State University, Computer Science Lines: 14 In-reply-to: davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:12452 comp.unix.wizards:15230 In article <13428@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) writes: >Will there still be a need for BSD or mach among the >people who don't do kernel research? If the commercail vendors go with >SysV, as it seems they will, will universities find it easier to get >fund$ for research on what vendors are selling and the government is >buying? I'm looking for good reasons other than kernel research, and I >don't think you need a totally new kernel to do that. How about source availability at reasonable cost? Lots of people want it very badly. Currently, of course BSD requires a licence from AT&T, but aren't they planning on removing all AT&T code from the system? In that case, I'd say that continuing BSD development is essential! -- Scott Schwartz