Snakebytes (long -- and poisonous?).

[Steve Blair]

In article <1991Apr04.172441.22142 at cello.hpl.hp.com>, renglish at cello.hpl.hp.com (Bob English) writes:

|> If most of the systems he
|> works with are BSD-based, a single SysV based machine, or a new group of
|> them will be painful to administer.  Many of the scripts that he's
|> written won't work correctly, and the user community will complain that
|> things don't work as they used to.
|> 
|> --bob--
|> renglish at hplabs
|> Not speaking for anyone.

*************

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but this statement
Bob, is patently *mis-leading*. Just because things dont' 100% work
the same thing the same way does not imply, or *mean* that
there's something "wrong" with an operating system.

For example:

I've spent many, many years in BSD systems' environments. Now as
a member of the UNIX groups at DELL, I find myself working in
new ways. Very, VERY few things that worked before in BSD land
don't work in SYS V.4 . I've got a csh that works great, my pick
of cc's that I wish to utilize, as well as library, and include
file support for both environments. When assisting new users, I 
give them the *choice* of deciding if they'd like things to be
as the "knew & loved" in BSD land, or to explore new territories
in SVR4.

My scripts that worked on BSD systems work quite fine here, at 
least in DELL V.4, and programs that I used to run under X in
BSD land were exceptionally trivial to have work in V.4 land.

Please carefully evaluate an operating system's "particulars"
before branding things that may well work as well, or better
than other environments.....

regards,

-- 
Steve Blair	DELL	UNIX	DIVISION sblair at upurbmw.dell.com
================================================================