Job control

[Oleg Kiselev]

In article <1012 at awdprime.UUCP> mjones at fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
[AIX RT being 4.3-like]
>Eh? Well, other than sockets, vi, csh (no job control).... Actually, there
>are enough Berkeleyisms in AIX for the RT that folks used to bsd systems
>are only moderately uncomfortable.

There were sockets and csh in XENIX SysV for 286 as well, that did not make
it BSD-like.  vi ports run under MSDOS.  csh is available in almost all SysV
ports sold.  I appreciate the valiant effort of you, Kingston folk, to defend
RT, but let's be real.  There is nothing about AIX RT that makes it any more
BSD-friendly than the last "pure" SysV machine I used, Encore Multimax.

>>-- RT enjoyed some of the worst sales IBM ever had and had some of the worst
>>user community reception.  Why should such a commercial failure determine the
>>appearance of a perfectly sane operating system?
>Can you say "customer base"? I knew you could. Even if there's not many
>of them, it's not a good thing to ignore existing customers.

I don't buy that reasoning.   There is no point in forcing an RT look on the
family of products that are targeted for a very large user community just
because a few governmental agencies had bought a few RT AIX machines (most
RT boxes I have seen were ACIS 4.3 BSD boxes running X).

In fact, that's the same reasoning that keeps 370 machines "compatible" with
360 and earlier systems (to what end?  It would have been cheaper, in the
long run, to rewrite the software!) and is responsible for 8086 being such a
dog in the name of 8080 and CP/M compatibility (386 is what 8086 was supposed
to be!).
-- 
			"No regrets, no apologies"   Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev            ARPA: lcc.oleg at seas.ucla.edu, oleg at gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230           UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg