PUPS/TUHS should not be divisive
Markus Leypold
leypold at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Mon Jun 19 18:58:21 AEST 2000
> Delivered-To: leypold at lesbains.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
> From: "Mike Allison" <mallison at konnections.com>
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:05:01 -0600
> Sender: owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
>
> I think I understand what Michael is saying. Or at least it means something
> to me.
>
> 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).
Well, the demarcation lines are not wuite clearly drawn. Only
yesterday my eyes fell on a paragraph in Peter Salus Book: 4.xBSD
brought ... improvments ... also a port to the Intel 386/486
Architecture by Bill Jolitz. Well, 386BSD became FreeBSD and it's
offspring.
Why can't we just stay on big family ? Of course FreeBSD has it's
archives elsewhere, but still no reason to divide instead of unite ?
>
> 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
> se.
>
> 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.
Well, not to be disprespectful to honorable members of the community
certainly should be a parameter :-)
It makes me sad to see all this.
Regards -- Markus
> Just one insignificant soul's opinion (JOISO)
>
> -Mike
>
> Mike Allison
> Stranded in Utah, USA
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
> And
> >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
> are
> >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 TAA04261
for pups-liszt; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:02:46 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)
More information about the TUHS
mailing list