Q: lseek returns long or int? (BSD 4

[Clyde W. Hoover]

> From: henry at utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
> 
> If we bought 4.2BSD from a commercial outfit, with mega-bucks paid
> programmers, we'd return it with an angry demand for a full refund
> plus an apology.  Some of the bugs in 4.2 are shameful, to put it
> mildly.  The folks here who did most of our 4.1->4.2 conversion work
> have been heard to say "if we had to do it all over again, we wouldn't".
> 
> I agree it's amazing that an institute without mega-bucks paid programmers
> could introduce so many bugs into so much software that used to work.

Sorry to hear your 4.2 conversion was so in the weeds.  Of all
the UNIX conversions and software porting I've done (V6 to PWB,
PWB to V7, V7 to 2.8BSD, 2.8BSD to 4.2BSD, 2.8BSD to 2.9BSD),
that from 2.8BSD to 4.2BSD was the LEAST painful.

Nobody (except for maybe Bill Joy) claims 4.2BSD to be PERFECT.  What do you
EXPECT from a RESEARCH environment, a polished product?  By Grid, you must
not have ever dealt with V6 - talk about rough edges!  I challange you to
essentially REWRITE UNIX and NOT introduce bugs.  4.2 is the first extensive
rewrite of UNIX for DEC processors (Bell hasn't really rewritten V7, just
glommed on top of it), so I can say I'm suprised.

I get tired of people slamming 4.2 - it's not perfect, but I'll take it,
bugs and all, over all the other versions floating around.
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown"
	clyde at ut-ngp.ARPA, clyde at ut-sally.ARPA
	...!ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde, ...!allegra!ut-ngp!clyde