On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:13:14PM -0400, grg wrote: > by the late 80s, distributed software commonly had a 'configure' script
Not relevant. > if in the 90s you ever read usenet news via rn or trn or rrn [I didn't, FWIW, I've never been a big user of Usenet, and when I did use it I used windows-based readers or mailing list interfaces, such as comp.lang.python has. But it's completely irrelevant.] > I just don't get why you're so all-caps adamant about denying others credit > for their effort. Because it's not remotely applicable to the problems that Rich and I were discussing, namely the compatibility and interoperability of different Unix variants. At the time, all of the commercial Unix variants were licenced from and based upon either BSD Unix, or AT&T SysV Unix. They used their own code bases, which continually diverged from those original code bases, with their own build environments. Did the vendors work hard to ensure their stuff worked well with their own stuff? Of course they did, but that's not what we're talking about. As I already said, in general they went out of their way to thwart interoperability, changing behaviors of some system tools, installing them in different paths, etc.. So all of the points you're making are just completely irrelevant. If you're talking about 3rd-party application software, then your points are reasonable, but we're not--we're predominantly talking about the OS layers, which includes things like how shell scripts work, the paths at which system utilities lived, or how network logins work--the things Rich described. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
