[TUHS] SVR4 vs. Solaris 2

[Warner Losh via TUHS]

Solaris 2.0 beta came with a compiler only smart enough to build the kernel
from mostly .o files. I don't know if it was a stripped K&R or what. Hello
world didn't build, but i don't recall why.

A separate disk had the sunpro compiler on it.

Gnu didn't catch up until 2.1 iirc.

Large parts were stock svr4. Solbourne never had a stable version of
Solaris 2. We were short on cash after doing SMP for sunos 4.0 and 4.1...

Sadly i can't read,the solaris 2.0 beta cd i have.

Warner

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025, 8:36 PM Clem Cole via TUHS <tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:

> I know that a large amount of x86 was done by NCR with their Unix team in
> Columbia, SC.  That was partly because NCR had already been heavily
> involved in the m88k support for SVR3 (their m88k system was cancelled when
> they switched to be Intel only across their product line).
>
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:43 PM Charles H. Sauer (he/him) via TUHS <
> tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> > I assume Larry and others can be definitive about the inside Sun
> > perspective on this regarding SPARC, but I hope someone can say more
> > with regards to X86. I remain curious about how/why Zander et al wanted
> > the Dell SVR4 team involved. Michael told me of discussions he had with
> > McNealy, but I still don't see how it could have worked for either
> > company. Charlie
> >
> > On 11/11/2025 8:35 PM, Clem Cole via TUHS wrote:
> > > My memory is a bit hazy here so Tom or Larry are probably better
> sources
> > > but … IIRC they were close but not 100% identical. Remember Sparc was
> > not a
> > > reference platform for SVR4 (386/486 were). The big thing Solaris lost
> > was
> > > the work SunOS had done in the memory system. I never knew for sure,
> but
> > I
> > > think that was a big reason the boot/init and the command system became
> > > AT&Ts version.  However some of the earlier SunOS value add was put
> back
> > > in.
> > >
> > > For instance my memory is that Solaris could use sockets while SVR4
> still
> > > was pushing TLI/Streams plus Solaris supported Sun Threads as well as
> > > pthreads while SVR4 was only pthreads. Also I don’t remember if SVR4
> had
> > > dtrace which was a huge advantage.
> > >
> > >   I also believe the compilers were different. As Sun had early had
> > > (finally) invested in their own compilers with CMU/DEC style code
> > > generators and optimizers; while AT&T was still using PCC2.
> Interestingly
> > > enough because Sun was charging for their new compilers suite many end
> > > users/customers installed the Gnu family.
> > >
> > > Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs at tuhs.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pardon if this question has already been asked and answered
> > >> before, but I find myself curious.  System V Release 4 was a
> > >> joint effort between USL and Sun, which involved contributions
> > >> from both parties as well as other improvements.
> > >>
> > >> I often see it suggested that the first version of Solaris was
> > >> SVR4 itself, but my question is: Was the initial stock Solaris 2
> > >> release identical to USL SVR4, or were there still additional
> > >> value-adds that Sun made to the inaugural release of Solaris
> > >> beyond just the joint SVR4 trunk resulting from the project
> > >> between the two organizations?  In other words, when one
> > >> purchased and installed the initial release of Solaris, were they
> > >> in essence also installing SVR4 from USL, or was there some
> > >> appreciable difference?
> > >>
> > >> - Matt G.
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer at technologists.com
> > fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
> > Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to
> > <https://technologists.com/sauer/Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/mas.to>:
> > CharlesHSauer
> >
> >
>