Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cuae2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!hw3b!wnuxb!cuae2!heiby From: heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Ron Heiby) Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases Message-ID: <371@cuae2.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 11:51:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cuae2.371 Posted: Wed Jul 17 11:51:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 07:52:16 EDT References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> Reply-To: heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Ron Heiby) Organization: AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.micro.att:257 net.unix-wizards:13878 In article <2423@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >By implication that puts all commercial vendors of 4.2BSD systems >in the "unstable computing environment business"? There there, John. I was talking about the University of CA at Berkeley. I was not talking about any commercial vendors. I have no knowledge of Sun's quality control, although I have heard good reports from users of Sun systems. BTW, in my previous job, I used a commercial port of System III to a M68000 based system. The quality on that product was marginal. So, I know enough not to be talking about quality of commercial products based only on their porting base (although I have my favorite). My remarks dealt only with the orientation of the organization that puts out System V versus the organization that puts out BSD. Both are available. It is up to the organization that purchases either to understand the pros and cons involved. I'm sorry my remarks could have been mis-interpreted. -- Ron Heiby heiby@cuae2.UUCP (via ihnp4) AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109