instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases

[Clyde W. Hoover]

>> Judging by how much stuff Bell broke when they came out with SV, and
>> judging by the fact that BSD is still sufficiently compatible that you
>> can run a V6 binary on it (2BSD, but 2 is source compatible with 4),

>"V6 binary"?  What have you been smoking?  For one thing, 2BSD is V7, not V6
>(I think 1BSD was the V6 Berkeley distribution), but, more importantly, you
>*can't* run V6 binaries on V7.  You don't even have a good chance of
>compiling *source* written for V6 on a V7 system and having it run.

Sorry Guy, I've got some V6 binaries that run just fine under 2.9BSD
(The sources were lost a LONG time ago).
As long as you stick to basic UNIX system calls (e.g. 'open', 'close', 'fork',
'read' and 'write'), in a '407' executable, there is no essential
system interface difference between V6 and V7 or 2.XBSD.

And except for VAX-related braindamage, I have easily gotten code
from V7/2.8/2.9 systems to compile & run under 4.1c/4.2BSD.  (Suns are
another matter - much like the VAX but without some of the stranger
braindamage).
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  

"Forward my mail to the corner of Pork and Beans"

	clyde at ut-ngp.ARPA, clyde at ut-sally.ARPA
	...!ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde, ...!allegra!ut-ngp!clyde