below...
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM Mary Ann Horton <mah(a)mhorton.net> wrote:
Inside AT&T (but outside research) there was
considerable pressure to use
AT&T products (3B, System V, BLIT/5620, Datakit) rather than the externally
developing Sun/Ethernet/TCP suite, especially in the mid-late 1980s. We
all (mostly) hated them and wanted Suns, but we were told "eat your own dog
food."
That was always my impression. IIRC Mt. Xinu made a poster (and Kolstad
made a series of buttons) stating "4.2 > V" I remember somebody (ber
probably) had it hanging in Whippany and certain supervisors were not
amsussed.
The 3B20 and 3B5 were awful, but the 3B2 had potential.
It was not so much they we awful IMO, is that
they were nothing special -
too little too late. The 3B20 (the only computer I even knew with a 'pull
starter'), was basically a 1MIP 780 and took the same resources (machine
room, multiple 19" cabinets, etc); when a 68020 based Masscomp, Apollo or
Sun was at 4-5 MIPS and fit under your desk. As I said, fighting the last
war.
The 3B2 got the size and performance more inline, but the SW was still
behind and by them it was arguable if a BLIT over a serial line could
compete with the builtin graphics. For the former, did the 3B2 only run
SRV3 and SRV4? The others ran SVR0-2 which was not even close to BSD. By
SVR3 the OS finally got better. BILT had some great stuff, but I think
the shear volume of programmers using X-Windows, particularly once it ran
on super cheap HW (*i.e.* Wintel based) it was tough.
> Once we got a working TCP/IP network in Bell Labs the tide turned in favor
> of Suns
Although by the time of its release, the default
system for
SRV4 was Wintel.
Clem