Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!auspex!guy From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: SVR4 vs BSD (was AIX (is it unix)?) Message-ID: <2499@auspex.auspex.com> Date: 26 Sep 89 00:30:50 GMT References: <1702@naucse.UUCP><11148@smoke.BRL.MIL> <19776@mimsy.UUCP> Reply-To: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 36 >>Its general filesystem support is entirely different > >Of course, everyone will use the 4.2 file system unless unwilling to >expend the time to convert. Although the RFS internals differ from the >vnode internals, the two are essentially the same Uh, what is RFS here? As of when I last had anything to do with S5R4, AT&T's RFS was to be implemented in S5R4 basically as a file system type under the S5R4 VFS mechanism. By "RFS" are you referring here to some 4.4BSD equivalent to VFS? If so, whoever named it might want to consider choosing a different name, to avoid confusion. >(modulo SunOS's ridiculous insistence that the local file system be >stateless). To what are you referring here? >>... Its network base is entirely different, although some of the >>"r-commands" may have been adapted from BSD versions. > >Well, there is no accounting for taste. Well, I don't know what "entirely different" means here. The networking code is based on streams and TLI, but: 1) there should be a sockets interface to TCP and UDP, at least, in S5R4; 2) the TCP/UDP/IP implementation should at least be derived from a 4.3-tahoe-vintage BSD implementation. >Of course, the VM system is based upon a design done at >Berkeley, and modified a bit at Sun. Are you saying that the SunOS 4.0 VM design was done at Berkeley, and just "modified a bit" at Sun?