Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!dawn!stpeters
From: stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: BSD at AT&T (was Re: ACCESS TO SHARED TAPEDRIVES)
Message-ID: <8170@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 87 23:12:41 GMT
References: <6740@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3254@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <3053@phri.UUCP> <3259@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Sender: root@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP
Reply-To: dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP (Dick St.Peters)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 24

In article <3259@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell) writes:
>In article <3053@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>
>>	That an AT&T employee would rather use a foreign, unsupported
>>product than his own company's native, supported, official "one true Unix"
>> ...
>I disagree with the implication.  Both System V and BSD Unix have their
>pros and cons.  Depending on what you're doing, in some cases you'll be
>better off with System V and in other cases you'll prefer BSD (for instance,
>research vs development).  I see nothing wrong with that. It just says
>that neither is perfect.

The issue, as I see it, is not which system is better but that AT&T
has tried its best to impose on everyone else a "one true UNIX" that
it doesn't feel constrained to impose on itself.

Maybe if Mr. Krell had to use his own company's product, he just might
find a way to convince AT&T to improve it enough so everybody *wanted*
to use it.
--
Dick St.Peters                        
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY
stpeters@ge-crd.arpa              
uunet!steinmetz!stpeters