Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Date: 31 Oct 2024 22:29:08 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <vg10bk$cdf$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <8ehfhj9jphf08ssafje6l45ugf8dd4gjub@4ax.com> <f90df5f3-6778-5d0e-73cc-be6d96b7d67c@example.net> <vg0jlm$2qcl7$2@dont-email.me> <WxQUO.453519$WOde.334919@fx09.iad>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="29518"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 2046

Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>At that time BSD was likely not considered as mature as VMS,
>and to be quite fair, VMS was a well designed and well written
>operating system widely proven in production.   BSD was mostly
>relegated to research roles primarily, the exception being
>SUN who used it (plus a bit of system V) for the first four
>releases of SunOS before switching to AT&T System V.

And to be honest, the big kernel with heavyweight processes philosophy
of VMS wasn't a bad one.  It was the implementation with NT that was so
terrible, and much of what went wrong with that implementation had to do
with trying to run an existing MS-DOS codebase with as few change as 
possible.

The OS/2 team took a similar idea and did a far better job with it.
It was so nice to see microcomputers finally adopting features like
demand paging and pre-emptive multitasking which had become common
twenty years earlier in the big computer world.
--scott

I will say that there were a lot of companies out there shipping BSD
with their systems.  SunOS and Ultrix were both just 4.3BSD with extra
bugs added, and a lot of smaller companies like Pyramid were doing
similar things.
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."