PUPS/TUHS should not be divisive
mallison at konnections.com
Sun Jun 18 02:05:01 AEST 2000
I think I understand what Michael is saying. Or at least it means something
I don't have a lot vested here, nor have I always followed the issues with
PUPS and now TUHS.
Certainly a big part of this was running AT&T UNIX systems on these
machines. And, TUHS might only ever be about UNIX as UNIX (R).
The fact that you COULD run a unix clone -- Linux, Open BSD, what have you
is fine. We can argue that true BSD was a set of improvements or additions
to UNIX which may even have been sanctioned in part by the UNIX team. But
the fact that you run Linux, Open BSD, MINIX or a MSDOS clone is not
pertinent to running UNIX System N.n
Using the GNU C Compiler is not pertinent to the AT&T K&R C compiler, per
Is the ultimate purpose then of the list to keep the machines running
regardless of OS, or to run AT&T UNIX on these systems.
I won't fault Michael for his perspective. But I guess we should agree to
define the parameters of the list, or agree NOT to define them.
Just one insignificant soul's opinion (JOISO)
Stranded in Utah, USA
From: Michael Sokolov <msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG>
To: pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au <pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Date: Saturday, June 17, 2000 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: PUPS/TUHS should not be divisive
>If it isn't Ritchie and Thompson's original UNIX code, then it isn't UNIX.
>I want UNIX, in four capitals with an R-in-circle superscript. I don't care
>about clones and workalikes and copycats. However "modern" they are, they
>still mere clones and copycats. And I want the genuine article.
Received: (from major at localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA93311
for pups-liszt; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:20:27 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)
More information about the TUHS