🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TOMS.90Mar18192729@omews44.intel.com> toms@omews44.intel.com (Tom Shott) writes:
| 
| Intel is marketing the ATT SysV V4 Unix which is stated to be a merge of
| Sys V5 and BSD. I contacted the group selling it and it seems it's
| everything they claim. As I understand it Intel did the port and your
| buying shrink wrapped software.


  I would like to know who you talked to, and where to order this,
because I don't think it's correct. I got two helpful notes from people
at Intel on my original posting. One was in documentation and stated
that they would see to it that the people answering the phone knew the
difference between V.3 and V.4, and the other stated that the UNIX
operation (formerly Bell Technologies) had the product in beta test at
present. Everyone indicated that the product was not even in controlled
release yet, much less for sale.

  If you want to tell me where to buy it *today* I would love to find
that I have talked to the wrong people at Intel. I have to make a
recommendation on upgrading some machines from Xenix, and configuring
some hundreds of embedded systems, and I have the impression that the
Intel product (and the INteractive 486/ix) are not currently
deliverable, and are not ready for production use yet.

  This is not a complaint, just a statement of the state of the
availability for V.4 at this time. My impression is that SCO is not
going to do V.4 until V.4.1 is out, but that was told to me
*unoficially* and is not claimed to be more than the statement of
someone who works there.
| 
| From what I know about V4,  any BSD software should compile correctly along
| with SunOS extensions. Only one question. Do the commands feel BSDish or
| SysVish ?

  From the one chance I got to dial into a system at {site deleted} it
feels like SunOS. Most of the BSD commands are there, but where there
was a SysV versions of a command and a V7/BSD version, the old version
was dropped. As an example the pr command has all the SysV options.

  The shell appeared to be ksh88a, although I wouldn't swear to it. It
was newer than ksh86, and older than 88d, but beyond that I can't say.
One person at a major vendor (not AT&T) said that they were running it
on internal systems for production, and the reliability was "very good."
I am really looking forward to it.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon