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