Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:19:31 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OSS, Sun, GPL, random ramblings Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000824180838.00e0c750@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000825001125.A58486@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <200008242057.NAA15423@usr06.primenet.com> <20000821140419.B13975@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <200008242057.NAA15423@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:11 PM 8/24/2000, j mckitrick wrote: >I've heard a lot of people rave about VMS. What was so great about it? It was highly optimized for transaction processing and database work, which made it an ideal "back office" OS. It had a more consistent design philosophy and more consistent conventions than UNIX. Some folks didn't like its "corporate" feel and its orientation toward screen-oriented rather than character-oriented applications, but it did many things very well. >Also, what is so advanced about SYSV, and why can't those strengths be >applied to BSD? Since Linux is based on SYSV, where did it go wrong, >besides the obvious answer, fragmentation? Most people believe that AT&T's purpose in creating System V was to wrest control of UNIX's standards and conventions away from CSRG and BSD, which had de facto control of them before divestiture. Many of the changes made in System V were motivated by a desire not to improve the OS but to make it different from, and annoyingly incompatible with, classic BSD UNIX. While System V did erase a few inconsistencies that had crept into BSD (e.g. conventions for command line arguments), it left many in place and added more quirks of its own. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000824180838.00e0c750>