Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:09:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, stesin@gu.net Subject: Re: SVR4.2MP source code has become available recently? Message-ID: <XFMail.970727000909.Shimon@i-Connect.Net> In-Reply-To: <199707261958.MAA02939@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I basically agree with the below comments. The SMP code was derived (according to legend) from Sequent work and therfore should be interesting. The only thing I liked about the desktop was the desktop itself (the class of functionality comparable to xfm). The rest of it was, well... Let it rest in peace indeed. I worked mostly on I/O, boot and other such messes and was endlessly amused at the number of lines of code everything took. I honestly (as a newcomer to FreeBSD), think we have here a superior O/S. Much lower level of pompousness, in any case... Much lower. Simon Hi Terry Lambert; On 26-Jul-97 you wrote: > [ ... UnixWare ... ] > > > It has a descent SMP implementation (Better than Solaris). > > The SCSI layer may be interesting. > > Used to have a nice desktop for X11 > > Ugh. > > The SMP implementation *is* "better"... quoted because it is more > x86 dependent tha the Solaris stuff. Personally, I'd use the > Solaris model, if only for hardware compatability, if I had the > choice to make, and if doing so would not infringe trade secrets > and copyrights, and risk contamination. Remember that both these > source bases are *licensed*, not freely usable. > > > The UnixWare SCSI layer probably excludes the HIM-derived code for > the Adaptec controllers, which is about the only thing that I found > interesting about the code. Honestly, Julian's code was better > than UnixWare's at the time. > > > The X11 desktop was only nice in that it was an OpenLook with hacks > to let it have a Motif "look and feel", and let you switch between > them. Like all compromise soloutions, it was vastly disliked. > > The major reason the desktop was shipped was "Not Invented Here" > for CDE and Visix Looking Glass. > > This type of crap is why UnixWare never succeeded in the desktop > market. > > Most of the driving forces behind the UnixWare developement, which > mainly occurred at Univel, a partnership between AT&T and Novell, > before Novell bought USL and owned it all themselves, were people > like Gary Tomlinson and Brian Sparks. > > If that second name is familiar, it should be: Brian Sparks was > the person behind the original NetWare for UNIX product, and > through it, the genesis of the Platform Independent NetWare > code (a derivitive of his idea, not something he personally did; > it was, IMO, inferior to the NetWare for UNIX code in many ways, > and ended up being pulled into the mainline NetWare -- an unfortunate > occurance). > > Brian Sparks is also the guy behind the Novell project to build > a desktop OS based on Linux (internally, they were called "Linivel"), > and eventually went on to be the principle founder of Caldera > when the internal project was killed for fear of it damaging > UnixWare sales (UnixWare has a rather large footprint). > > The shitty UnixWare desktop that could not be replaced because > it was USL technology was IMO, one of the straws that broke the > camels back; I would not recommend getting the code... let it die > in peace. > > > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.970727000909.Shimon>