home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!bcc.ac.uk!link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk!ucacmsu
- From: ucacmsu@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Stephen R Usher)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Subject: Re: I wonder, did AT&T backstab BSDI?
- Keywords: AT&T speculation lawsuit BSDI
- Message-ID: <1992Jul29.144859.8222@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
- Date: 29 Jul 92 14:48:59 GMT
- References: <1992Jul28.153750.8395@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@ucl.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
- Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium, London
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1992Jul28.153750.8395@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> knight@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Knight of the Living Dead) writes:
- >
- >As I recall when System 5 Revision 4.0 was released, it was described
- >(to me, anyway) as an attempt to gain "BSD Compatibility". I'm wondering
- >if the reason why AT&T held out sueing BSDI this long is so they could
- >claim copyright of BSD's code/style/look/feel/etc while it was still
- >popular, and then smash all the competition.
-
- The only problem with this idea is that SYSVr4 (NOT System 5, that was
- another Unix way back) doesn't look like BSD, it still looks like SYSV to
- the normal user, ie you have horrid syntax for the ps utility where you need
- to use a hyphen in front of the arguments and the devices... yuck!
-
- The only real thing I've seen which is BSD is the socket library (not
- complete) and the BSD compatibility library which is not complete either.
-
- >
- [Stuff deleted]
- >-- Eric Knight
- >
- >------------------------------------------------------------------------
- >These opinions are my own, and my employeer doesn't want me ruining his
- >life anymore than I absolutely have to.
- > EBKnight@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
- >------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Steve
- --
- Addresses:-
- JANET:- ucacmsu@uk.ac.ucl or steve@uk.ac.ox.earth (preferable)
- Internet:- ucacmsu@ucl.ac.uk or steve@earth.ox.ac.uk (preferable)
-