HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:11:19 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Sequent uses a BSD kernel, very thinly disguised. Eg. the following does not
>work in setuid program. 

Does it work under Dynix/PTX?  I.e., is Dynix/PTX also a BSD kernel,
even though they claim it to be an SV system?

>real = getuid() ;
>eff = geteuid() ;
>setuid(real) ;
>system("..") ;
>setuid(eff) ; /* This fails, whereas in SysV it works */

Note that it also works if you compile it with "/usr/5bin/cc" in
SunOS 4.x (and even works if you compile with "/usr/bin/cc", if you use
"seteuid()" to set the effective UID).
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: tauk0@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Fredrik Staxang)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:51:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>scales better to the larger systems sun is beginning to offer (there is
>a reason that just about every large scale multiprocessor system vendor
>from Sequent to Cray uses SYSV).
      ^^^^^^^

Sequent uses a BSD kernel, very thinly disguised. Eg. the following does not
work in setuid program. 

real = getuid() ;
eff = geteuid() ;
setuid(real) ;
system("..") ;
setuid(eff) ; /* This fails, whereas in SysV it works */

So instead you use setreuid(), which is a BSD call. There is also som other
things that work the BSD way, but the real giveaway is when you start to look 
at the VM system.

/Fredrik



Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:312 comp.unix.bsd:8949
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:19:37 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>USL is
>even less clueful.  System V UNIX is dead.  The market opened their eyes
>and told them "you can't possibly be serious!" and they adopted BSD as 
>the only way to keep selling licenses.  POSIX won the interface battle,
>not SVID.  BSD won the users over.  If you think a new user would take
>System V.[01234] seriously as a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are
>totally out of your freaking mind.

Umm, from your claim that "they" - presumably meaning "USL" - "adopted
BSD", you are asserting that "System V.4" actually *is* BSD, so the
statement that

	If you think a new user would take System V.[01234] seriously as
	a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are totally out of your
	freaking mind.

should be changed to refer to "System V.[0123]".

(And from your list of "You mean I'll have to" list, you're clearly
enumerating AT&T/USL bogosities that they've abandoned, with the
possible exception of the shell script, not enumerating stuff that's the
case with *current* SV - SVR4 supports file systems with long file
names, provides a sockets interface to TCP/IP, supports X11, and
provides the C shell for those people perverse enough to like it :-) -
so, again, you are aware that SVR4 isn't like earlier SV's.)

(Oh, and if SV sucks so badly, how come you wrote a "cron" that behaves
like SV's "cron"? :-))
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:325 comp.unix.bsd:9008
From: andrewr@ultrix.EBay.Sun.COM (Andy Roach)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:38:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: andrewr@Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: ultrix

: In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
: > Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the
: 
: Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.  Who's left who
: qualify as ``major''?    I don't know if SGI are (a) major or (b) Sys V,
: but it doesn't really matter.

Interesting...

DEC ports SVrN (N=23) to Vaxen to sell back to the Baby Bells.

Ultrix has a SYSV "world" from V1.2 (or was it 2.0 ?)

AIX is decended from a mix of SVr1-3 & HP/UX has followed the SVID at least
to SVr3.

In Europe System V is the dominant player withICL, Olivetti, Siemens/Nixdorf.

Andy
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:24:07 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <id.U_0V.SJ3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.075931@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>> The only reason SysV is alive is because of SVR4, and the only reason any-
>> one wants SVR4 is because of the BSDisms.
>
>Frankly, most people in the commercial world couldn't give a shit about BSD
>features. What they want is (a) usable MS-DOS/Windows emulation, (b) native
>commercial software, and (c) a system they don't need a guru to support. All
>the new BSD features are just confusing them.
>
>System V doesn't give you all this, yet, but it's a damn sight closer than
>BSD. It's probably even better than most PC-based networks as a multiuser
>solution. Unfortunately, I suspect NT will do all this better and UNIX on
>the desktop is doomed whether it's SV or BSD.

Windows NT.  Microsoft people, who have been posting in comp.os.os2.advocacy,
have basically said that NT will not come with software to support multiple
terminals/logins.  The most likely use of NT will be as a server for systems
running Windows 3.1.  The actual name of the NT product is Windows 3.1 NT.
-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: inet
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:39:10 GMT

merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
: 
: Windows/NT is likely to have BSD and AT&T/USL UNIX for lunch.  It supposedly
: offers POSIX, Win16, Win32, SMP, networking, and a whole truckload of other
: stuff on a single optical disk for easy installation and operation.  I have
: not seen an X11R5 product announcement -- but it can't be ffar from release.
: I suspect most desktop systems will be running Windows/NT by the end of 1993
: -- and with rare exceptions i386/i486 based SYSV systems will bite the dust.
: 
: The large scale mainframe market may still be up for grabs -- but Windows/NT
: as a transportable scalable architecture (provided the claims are met) will
: probably make a very attractive cross spectrum operating system product.

FYI - I have had betas of Win/NT since July. It may try to offer everything
to everyone, but it doesn't always deliver. It will be years - not just
one before it will be stable enough to consider it an alternative 
to Unix. Also, Unix is a multi-user system. At present Win/NT
is only multi-threaded. It CANNOT handle multiple users simultaneously
using the system, it offers only a windowing interface, and no
method for windowing over the network such as Xwindows currently
offers.

Mary Morris
mesm@netcom.com

--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:07:27 GMT

igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the

>Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.  Who's left who

DEC is pushing OSF/1, which is has SysV roots,  IBM pushes AIX which is
a SysV derivative.  They may not call them SysV - but they are much
more SysV than BSD!

>qualify as ``major''?    I don't know if SGI are (a) major or (b) Sys V,
>but it doesn't really matter.

>ian
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: loverso@coltsfoot.osf.org (John Robert LoVerso)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: OSF Research Institute, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:41:46 GMT

In article <327@wafbox.UUCP>, bill@wafbox.UUCP (Bill Fulton) writes:
|> Emminent death of SysV Unix predicted!     :-)
|> 
|> (Who's gonna tell Robert, Brian, and the rest of the guys working Version
|> nine that they don't know UNIX from "a hole in thier ass"?)

AT&T != UNIX.  BSD != UNIX.  SYSV != UNIX.  (OSF/1 != UNIX)

UNIX == Tenth Edition.

And it is over.  See Plan 9.

``Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad.''
		-- Rob Pike

John
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the

Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.  Who's left who
qualify as ``major''?    I don't know if SGI are (a) major or (b) Sys V,
but it doesn't really matter.

ian
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:317 comp.unix.bsd:8968
From: ppan@nobeltech.se (Per Andersson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:12:34 GMT
Organization: NobelTech AB

In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV. 
Oh ? Aha, you mean HP and the small guys like SGI and others.
Neither DEC nor IBM uses system V, just hacked parts, just like
they use parts of BSD. Dec will deliver OSF/1.
(  Not that I like Ultrix and AIX anyway, but...)
>
>But once you get it ported it will be a lot easier to make it run on
>the other major systems out there.  And, perhaps more importantly,
>vendors writing software for other major systems out there will have a
>lot less trouble porting their software to Sun.

I haven't really seen any major system V selling vendors except the PC
market. Who uses System V ? ( We have Vaxen, SUNs,Destations,RS6000,HP,
Rational, Xerox, IBM/MVS. No system V)

>
>But its very nice once you do learn it.  Adding new devices is easier.

Yeah. Just like they wont be usable unless they are connected and powered
on when you boot the machine. I'm used to run around with my exabyte &
cdrom.

/Per
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Andersson - ppan@nobeltech.se (perand@stacken.kth.se on free time)
Managing networks at, but not speaking for Nobeltech AB, J{rf{lla, Sweden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: rmf@chopin.cs.columbia.edu (Robert M. Fuhrer)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Columbia Univ.
	<BxuEtw.HnL@world.std.com> <1992Nov17.123856.29315@udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:32:06 GMT

> OSF/1, AIX, HPUX and Irix (yes, I consider SGI major) are all strong
> descendants of the system V world. Everything from use of directories of boot
> scripts (rather than the BSDish rc.* scripts) to the use of inittabs to the
> man page directory structure to terminfo instead of termcap to a SYSV cron to
> a SYSV line printer system to a tendency towards STREAMS points to this.

Not that this particularly belongs to comp.unix.solaris, but I thought I'd
corrrect a few things just for drill.

It doesn't sound much like you've seen an RS/6000 running AIX. It does have
rc.{nfs,tcpip,net}, and various other BSD-like things you mentioned. E.g., AIX
relies on a proprietary database for its on-line hypertext documentation.
They've re-written man(1) so that it both knows about those and the usual man
page directories.

Actually, to be more accurate, for some things it uses the underlying "Object
Data Manager" as an info repository, e.g., what TCP/IP services are currently
running, what file systems exists, and so on. The "normal" files are there only
for compatibility. If you change them, you typically have to run a program to
inform the daemons that things have changed.

In short, AIX is quite unlike BSD and Sys V under the covers. If you want the
covers on, it still may be less like them than you want. On the other hand,
some of the differences are appealing...
--

-- Bob
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: scoggin@opus.ee.udel.edu (John K Scoggin)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company, Newark
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:38:56 GMT

In article <BxuEtw.HnL@world.std.com> geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer) writes:
>Frank Peters:
>>OSF/1, AIX, HPUX and Irix (yes, I consider SGI major) are all strong
>>descendants of the system V world.
>
>AIX is unfortunately also a strong descendent of MVS and CMS (see s[mh]it
>and the mini-disks underlying AIX file systems for a start).  It's a pity
>that the thing doesn't come with CP67.
>-- 

You're right.  If the RS6000 came with CP67 or CMS, I could can the VM partition
on our 3090 and run the dwindling timesharing load on a mid-range RS6000 - that
would probably be a Good Thing!  We have 2 RS6000's here at Delmarva and I
HATE working on them.  I'd rather work on Sun problems or (shudder) SCO problems
rather than AIX...

	- John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John K. Scoggin, Jr.			Email:   scoggin@udel.edu
Supervisor, Network Operations			 scoggin@delmarva.com
Delmarva Power & Light Co.		Voice:	 302-451-5200
P.O. Box 6066				Fax:	 302-451-5321
Newark, DE 19714-6066
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your milage may vary.  Void where prohibited by law (or common sense).
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: joeg@gagme.chi.il.us (joe grosch)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: GAGME - Public Access UNIX of Chicago, Illinois, USA, Earth
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:00:00 GMT

Richard Warner (rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu) wrote:
[...deleted for to save bandwidth...]

:                     So, without someone to carry that torch, BSD will
: slowly die.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
A problem we are going to have to fix. That is unless you LIKE being under
the thumb of AT&T. 

There are enough talented people on this net who will work on 386BSD and 
ports to other machines (In the last two days I've seen posts from people 
who have a Sun 3 and HP 3000 who want 386BSD on them because they are 
losing support) to keep it going. A example of good, "free" software 
supported by the net and not-for-profit orig. is Elm and GNU gcc. 

Sun considers gcc to be a threat to it's own C compiler. Witness the 
current issue of UNIX World (I think), there is an ad for Sun's C 
compiler. In the ad they list the statement, "We got the compiler for free" 
as being on of the three great lies in life. The other two being, "The 
check is in the mail" and "There are no bugs in the code". I have also 
heard horror stories from Sun sales people about gcc. Of course the 
stories are AFOAF type and the stories were almost word-for-word repeats 
from differnt sales people.

Anybody in the Chicago or Minneapolis area (I live in Minneapolis and 
work in Chicago) who wants a copy of 386BSD, send me email and we'll 
swap tapes. Screw AT&T.

Josef
--
Josef Grosch         | It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, my home town...
joeg@gagme.chi.il.us |       New Yorker by birth, Minnesotan by choice 
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:322 comp.unix.bsd:8990
From: jay@silence.princeton.nj.us (Jay Plett)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:44:56 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Distribution: inet
Organization: Access, Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.231818.21141@nobeltech.se>, ppan@nobeltech.se (Per Andersson) writes:
> At the SparcClassic introduction SUN USA mentioned that Solaris 1.x has
> about 5.000 available software packages. Not a word on Solaris 2.x.
> (And the Classic and 2000 series won't run 1.x)

From Sun's Solaris 2.1 announcement:

|Q.	What third party applications will be available on Solaris 2.1?
|
|A.	Independent software vendors (ISVs) will announce the availability
|	of approximately 100 applications at the Solaris 2.1 introduction.
|	An additional 250 are expected to ship on Solaris 2.1 by the end
|	of the first quarter of CY93.  These applications are listed in the
|	Catalyst catalog "A Guide to More Than 350 Software Applications,
|	Summer `92" (literature distribution part no. 801-2879-01).
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1e57peINNg87@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>In article <VIXIE.92Nov14194825@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>You mean I'll be back to the 14-character file name limit soon?  Or that
>>I'll have to convert all my code from sockets to STREAMS?  Or that I'll
>>have to run a 200-kilobyte shell script to add accounts to my computer
>>soon?  Or that I'll have to punt X Windows in favor of a DMD5620 or VT100?
>>Or that I'll have to log into ksh or sh since will be removed from my disk?
>
>On my SCO SYSV/386 3.2r2.0 ODT 1.1 system we have BSD sockets, menu driven
>account creation, and X11R4 server and clients.  ODT 2.0 adds symbolic links
>and much longer filenames.  What will be removed from your disk?  We have sh,
>csh, ksh -- and probably anything else you would want.
>
>>Face it, dude, AT&T doesn't know UNIX from a hole in their ass.  USL is
>>even less clueful.  System V UNIX is dead.  The market opened their eyes
>>and told them "you can't possibly be serious!" and they adopted BSD as 
>>the only way to keep selling licenses.  POSIX won the interface battle,
>>not SVID.  BSD won the users over.  If you think a new user would take
>>System V.[01234] seriously as a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are
>>totally out of your freaking mind.
>
>Windows/NT is likely to have BSD and AT&T/USL UNIX for lunch.  It supposedly
>offers POSIX, Win16, Win32, SMP, networking, and a whole truckload of other
>stuff on a single optical disk for easy installation and operation.  I have
>not seen an X11R5 product announcement -- but it can't be ffar from release.
>I suspect most desktop systems will be running Windows/NT by the end of 1993
>-- and with rare exceptions i386/i486 based SYSV systems will bite the dust.
>
>The large scale mainframe market may still be up for grabs -- but Windows/NT
>as a transportable scalable architecture (provided the claims are met) will
>probably make a very attractive cross spectrum operating system product.

Check out the Windows and OS/2 groups.

Windows/NT will probably end up as a server OS.  Microsoft will position it
to server user running Windows 3.x on a network.  It has been said by
Microsloth posters that it will be sold as Windows 3.1 NT.

As shipped, NT will not allow dumb terminals on serial ports due to the
lack of a non-console login program.  It will allow telnet sessions from
clones running Windows 3.x.

There is a good chance that NT will barely be released by the end of 1993.

It is not a substitute for UNIX, in fact it is a different market.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:306 comp.unix.bsd:8910
From: bill@wafbox.UUCP (Bill Fulton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:44:09 GMT
Reply-To: bill@wafbox.UUCP (Bill Fulton)
Organization: Home

In article <VIXIE.92Nov14194825@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
># There are a lot of reasons to unify the UNIX world under one roof.  You
># may prefer BSD over SysV, but let's face facts -> BSD is dead.

>Face it, dude, AT&T doesn't know UNIX from a hole in their ass.  USL is
>even less clueful.  System V UNIX is dead.  The market opened their eyes
>and told them "you can't possibly be serious!" and they adopted BSD as 
>the only way to keep selling licenses.  POSIX won the interface battle,
>not SVID.  BSD won the users over.  If you think a new user would take
>System V.[01234] seriously as a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are
>totally out of your freaking mind.

Emminent death of SysV Unix predicted!     :-)

(Who's gonna tell Robert, Brian, and the rest of the guys working Version nine
that they don't know UNIX from "a hole in thier ass"?)

-- 
Bill Fulton            (Home Alone) |    Grab .. 
    bill@wafbox.gwinnett.com        |            The ..
OR  ..!gatech!dcatla!wafbox!bill    |                   Reins
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:59:31 GMT

rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>There are a lot of reasons to unify the UNIX world under one roof.  You
>may prefer BSD over SysV, but let's face facts -> BSD is dead...

What are you smoking, and where can I get some (legally)???

The only reason SysV is alive is because of SVR4, and the only reason any-
one wants SVR4 is because of the BSDisms.

Mostly, folks using SunOS aren't interested in SVR4/Solaris2, because it's
a bag on the side of what they've got.

Mostly, folks using SVR3 *are* interested in SVR4 because it's something
useful on the side of the bag they've got.

USL has been trying to figure out how to incorporate BSD features to move
their OS forward to where Berkeley was a decade ago.

>...BSD is
>the property of UC California, Berkeley, and they are closing it down.

(Insert obvious "he doesn't know what he's talking about" reply re
"property".)

>...So, without someone to carry that torch, BSD will slowly die.  

On the face of it, it's true--**IF** nobody picks up the torch from CSRG,
BSD will die.  But that's an "if pigs had wings" argument...the issue is
not whether there is someone to pick up the torch, but which of the several
possibilities will be the one to carry it.

>USL is still the 'master of the source' for Sys V...

Yes, the gorilla is guarding the ancient jewelry. 

If you could back up far enough in the source code, USL could give you one
of the better operating systems of the late '70's.  Try to imagine why
people don't care.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:311 comp.unix.bsd:8948