att & osf

[Malaclypse the Elder]

In article <1988Aug19.204836.23395 at utzoo.uucp>, henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> I am speaking of portability of Unix, i.e. the kernel AND THE UTILITIES.
> As at least one would-be lookalike builder has discovered, the hard part
> about duplicating Unix is the utilities, not the kernel.  And at least
> the older System V utilities deferenced a lot of NULL pointers.
> 
that may have been what you were speaking of, but i got the distinct
impression that the "publicized" fear of the founders of osf was in
the area of KERNEL PORTABILITY.  anyway, judging from your last sentence,
it seems that you are not sure whether newer system v utilities dereference
NULL pointers or not.  if that is the case, how can you make a statement
that at&t has done diddly to improve portability over the past several
years?  if it is true, as you claim, that porting unix utilities is difficult,
then making them portable would be at least as difficult.  and if you are not
sure whether at&t has done this difficult task, then how can you so callously
be making such harsh judgments?

sorry to pull the court room lawyer routine on you, but you have been making
comments that i believe to be more founded in religion than actual fact.
you may resent the fact that the unix system does in fact belong to at&t.
it is extremely expedient and self serving (not to mention a form of denial)
to assert that the only entity that can claim ownership rights to the
unix system is a bell system that is no longer existent.  but it is childish
to take your frustrations out on a hard working development organization that
in reality has done much good work over the past several years.

by the way, i did get an e-mail response about a kernel portability problem that
has been introduced in the past several years and will be looking into
whether it is still in the porting base (and i'm not even in the development
organization...how's that for commitment?).

danny chen
att!homxc!dwc