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.