4.2 had networking, 4.1 did not.   32V did not either.  I'm asking 32V vs 4.1

ᐧ

On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:30 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:

BSD had networking.  Once you had that, you don't look back.  Sys V (and
prior) so far as I know, didn't get networking until Coherent did their
STREAMS stack that somehow ended up at Lachman - I ported it to a crazy
super computer and to SCO Unix.  SCO was pretty stock AT&T code and let
me tell you, it felt pretty crappy after having used BSD and then SunOS.
It was a giant step backwards.

I just think the BSD folks were moving forward faster.  Rob with start
talking about cat waving its tail, I get it, not everything was better
but a lot was.  Solid networking that performed was very pleasant.

On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 02:23:49PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You got me thinking and I'm curious if anyone really knows historically how
> many sites ran a 32V system?   In those days (late 70s/early 80s) the
> universities that knew and and even many sites inside the Bell System, the
> Vaxen I ran 4.1BSD (say the Marx's brothers at Whippany along with the Vax
> in the underseas research lab were we put the AP I did for my thesis).
> There were a couple in Summit I know, and probably Homdel and I'm guessing
> in some of the operating companies, but I never got the feeling 32V was
> popular.  The folks with Vaxen that I knew, if you were able to run BSD
> (4.1 and eventually 4.2), did.  Later on the only non-'pure-joy' systems I
> knew were a couple of Ultrix systems because they wanted the support from
> DEC and IIRC were using FORTRAN and wanted the DEC compiler which only ran
> on Ultrix or VMS.  Inside of AT&T, I personally think I knew more folks
> with VMS (Fortran being the key anchor)  than those that ran 32V.
> ???

--
---
Larry McVoy                  lm at mcvoy.com             http://www.mcvoy.com/lm