4.2 and cheap LAN connections and later WAN connections drove the hockey stick - no doubt and your are right, until the Stream networking work (which was originally Steve Rago and the folks in Summit, IIRC), PWB 3/PWB 4.0 and later the commercially System V was definitely at a huge disadvantage and even when the Streams networking code shows us, the performance was not nearly as good plus by that time, all the code had started to assume sockets (and sockets had been ported to DOS), so Streams was still born.
ᐧ

On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:35 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
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