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