On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Norman Gray wrote:
> > that all sounds like very useful advice, if I ever (or JAC) get back to
> > OSX. One further thought I had after reading your messages yesterday is
> > that perhaps OSX looks more Solaris (System V) like than Linux-like, in
> > which case I may have got better service working from the Solaris variant,
> > rather than the Linux one (saw gcc, thought Linux was a good starting
> > point)...
>
> I get confused at all this. I thought that SunOS 1-4 was very BSD-ish,
> and that it started to get SYSV-ish features with SunOS5/Solaris.
> Linux, I thought, wasn't anything in particular, but was more SYSV-ish
> than not. OS X, however, is pure 4.4BSD/FreeBSD. Thus the Solaris version
> might indeed be a better place to start from, simply because it's
> BSD-ish SunOS, rather than because it's SYSV-ish Solaris. I'm not sure
> if the diagram on <http://www.levenez.com/unix/> backs this up or not!
>
> Just by the way, to dispel some social anxiety, do you know whether One
> is supposed to pronounce it `sys-vee', `sys-five' or `system-five' --
> I worry about these things. I do know it's supposed to be `oh-ess-ten'
> rather than `oh-ess-ex'. Stop laughing! I'm neurotic.
I've only ever heard anyone say system-five, but that's a far from
definitive response, so you'll have to keep worrying. I intend not to!
I think your analysis about SunOS/Solaris/Linux sounds about right, but
that diagram didn't help.
Cheers,
Peter.
|