8 Nov
2015
8 Nov
'15
3:45 p.m.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015, Larry McVoy wrote:
Just getting back to email (spent the day taking
pictures at a hockey
tournament).
A typical Canadian :-) There is only one game, and it's called Cricket;
where else can you see a sport that can take five days, and ends up in a
draw?
[...]
I tend to agree with whoever said 2.11BSD. If you
have to do 16 bit and
you want all the goodies, 2.11BSD is where you want to be. Back porting
all that stuff to System III really makes me ask the question of "why?".
Why bother? I get that it could be like a mountain you want to climb,
if that's the case, cool. But I never saw System III as much of a cool
mountain. I think there were some cool parts, didn't the PWB and DWB
come form System III? If so, those where the things I'd want to have
ported forward. Other than that, what's the System III attraction?
I thought PWB (makers of "make") came from Harvard? Other than that, Sys
III/V was presented by suits; enough said. System III was, well, what
System V was going to be like... It never had TCP/IP, only BNU (i.e. UUCP
with a jazzed-up name).
Gahh... I still have flash-backs to that awful "cu" command,
Perhaps it's my experience with Lionel Singer et al, but I really learned
to hate SysIII/V...
If you actually have a need to have this work and have
networking then
once again Clem has the right idea, grab one of those boards. (And once
again I want to meet Clem in person, lot of love for the Masscomp work
and all his stories).
Indeed.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."