Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: ACCESS TO SHARED TAPEDRIVES
Message-ID: <6815@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 13 Dec 87 15:00:16 GMT
References: <6740@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3254@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <3053@phri.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) )
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <3053@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
-In article <3254@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes:
-> I built it for 4.[23]BSD using C++.
-	That an AT&T employee would rather use a foreign, unsupported
-product than his own company's native, supported, official "one true Unix"
-says more about the relative merits of the two versions than anything I can
-think of.

It doesn't say a damn thing about the relative merits of the two systems!
There are plenty of people that have a choice who for their own reasons
prefer one version or the other.  BRL's party line was that 4.nBSD was the
preferred system, but there are many here and elsewhare who use my System V
environment on those systems just because they like it better.  (And there
are plenty others who prefer the native 4.nBSD environment.)  Do you want
to say that just because Dennis Ritchie spends a lot of time working with
UNIX System V on a Cray that that proves that UNIX System V has more merit
than 4.nBSD?

Let's not reopen the old silly "my system is better than yours" debate.
Or at least, let's use better logic.