Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:58:21 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200006190858.KAA24686@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
From: Markus Leypold <leypold@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: mallison@konnections.com
Cc: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG, pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
In-reply-to: <007901bfd875$cb8aaea0$ab7a3fd1@oemcomputer>
	(mallison@konnections.com)
Subject: Re: PUPS/TUHS should not be divisive
References:  <007901bfd875$cb8aaea0$ab7a3fd1@oemcomputer>
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk



 > Delivered-To: leypold@lesbains.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
 > From: "Mike Allison" <mallison@konnections.com>
 > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:05:01 -0600
 > Sender: owner-pups@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@ivan.Harhan.ORG>
 > To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au <pups@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.
 > >
 > 
 >