🚀 go-pugleaf

>Talk to Microport.  They sell UNIX, they don't sell DWB (their text processing
>package is part of the full V.2 distribution)

The fact that their text process package is part of the full V.2
distribution in no way implies that "they don't sell DWB".  It may
merely mean that they bundle V.2 and DWB into what they sell as their
"full V.2 distribution", and either swallow the cost of the DWB
sublicense or include it in the price of their UNIX license.

>they don't have makedev because it wasn't distributed with the V.2 source,

If you're referring to the System V, Release 2, (no version number)
source for the VAX, then not only was "makedev" not distributed with
that source but neither was (Device|Typesetter) Independent "troff",
"pic", "tbl", nor anything else.  Period.  I've seen that
distribution and there was NO DWB anywhere on it.

>We sell DWB related software -- we have to keep track of what appears in
>what version.  ditroff and related programs appear in the System V.2 source
>distributions.

Look.  I read the System V, Release 3, Source Code Provision tape
into a machine here.  It had no DWB on it.  I read the System V,
Release 2, (no version number) VAX source tape into a machine at my
previous employer.  It had no DWB on it.  If you claim it's "just
part of the code", then you'd better explain why it wasn't on those
tapes.

If you have to keep track of what appers where in which version, you
don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.  I suspect you're
getting your information second-hand.  *I* got it first-hand, by
looking at what was *on* those source distributions after having read
them in myself.  If *you* saw it on your disk after reading in a
source distribution tape, then please tell us what the precise name
of the product that included that distribution tape was.  If you just
heard this from somebody else, then please take future claims by that
person about what appears on various source distributions from AT&T
with a grain of salt, because they don't know what they're talking
about in this case.

>It's not called DWB, by the way, it's just part of the code.

And if you claim "it's not called DWB", you'd better explain why AT&T
sells a package called the Documenter's Workbench....