31 Dec
2014
31 Dec
'14
11:42 p.m.
On 31/12/2014 15:13, John Cowan wrote:
Wesley Parish scripsit:
Thank you for stressing the importance of Solaris as a Unix descendant
for which source code is available. It's a pity that we don't have
public source code for the Solaris versions 2.1 to 10, so there's a 15
year gap between System V R4 and the first release of Open Solaris.
I don't agree that BSD systems are a clone of Unix. There are bits in
them that were written at Bell Labs. The earliest example I've found up
to now comes from timezone.c, and was written at least 36 years ago
(1979-01-10 14:58:45).
Compare the 7th Edition implementation of timezone()
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/libc/gen/timezone.c
with lines 110-128 of the current FreeBSD _tztab() implementation.
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/lib/libc/gen/timezone.c
(How did I find it? For the past six months I've been running git blame
on various tags of https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.)
Happy new year everybody!
--
Diomidis Spinellis http://www.spinellis.gr
[The] primary importance [of Solaris forks], from
my POV, is that they
keep the POSIX space open for experimentation: a Linux monoculture's
as deadening as a MS Windows monoculture or a \[choose your own poison\]
monoculture ...
Well, BSD does that. But Solaris is the only descendant of System V for
which we have source, which means that in non-Posix cases it can give
us helpful information how the original Unix code fared after leaving
the Labs. By comparison, both Linux and BSD are clones.