Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!rna!n44a!wjh12!genrad!decvax!mulga!munnari!basser!kvm From: kvm@basser.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Sigstack and BSD 4.2 Message-ID: <238@basser.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Mar-84 12:15:42 EST Article-I.D.: basser.238 Posted: Sun Mar 18 12:15:42 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 06:16:40 EST References: <147@celerity.UUCP>, <237@basser.SUN>, <234@mulga.SUN> Lines: 17 I don't agree about the joys of discovering a use for some 4.2 add. If I needed something that only 4.2 has I would have to write it myself so that my program would be portable. It's little consolation for my clients to be told that it would be all right if they had 4.2. I also don't agree that changing undocumented behaviour of a library call is a "bug fix". (Incidently I tried the _filbuf thing on a local Sys V site and things are still untouched, sdb still works without changing your eof character!). Here is an extract from an item of mail that I received following an earlier 4.2 flame (sorry Ed): "4.2bsd may not be a total disaster, but it does a good job of emulating one. Our system guru says he likes the kernel better than system 5's. I wouldn't know -- I'm just a poor, bruised user."