[Info-vax] misstatement of Unix origin [was Re: A portable VMS, was: Re: OS Ancestry]

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 5/24/21 9:24 AM, John Wallace wrote:
> On 24/05/2021 13:28, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-05-21, Rich Alderson <news at alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>
>>>> VAX. Which is where VMS started (and 32-bit processors are where Unix
>>>> and Linux started). It was a lot easier to get 32-bit Unix/Linux 
>>>> working
>>>> on 64-bit architectures than it was VMS.
>>>
>>> NB:  For the purposes of this discussion, Unix started on a *16*-bit
>>> architecture.  (We'll ignore the fact that it actually started on an 
>>> 18-bit
>>> word addressed architecture.)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, oops. :-) Somebody already reminded me about this a few days ago
>> and as I pointed out in response this just shows how much more portable
>> things are when you are using an implemention language not tied to the
>> architecture.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
> 
> Yeah sure, UNIX code was so portable that back in the 1980s anything 
> much more complex than "Hello World" had little chance of being portable 
> between (e.g.) BSD and System V even on the very same hardware.
> 
> When the two main camps can't even agree on the basics of opening a file 
> from C,
> as in fd = open(...),
> it's no wonder there was a customer/vendor need for a Single UNIX 
> Specification.
> 
> Fortunately times have moved on since then.

That had a lot more to do with deliberate proprietariness than
anything else.  AT&T saw itself losing what little bit of the
market they had grabbed and decided making theirs different and
incompatible was good business.  Eventually SYSV versions ended
out including BSD compatibility libraries because it was obvious
which way was better.  I don't remember seeing any BSD product
coming with a SYSV compatibility library.

bill