From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Lawrence Kirby Subject: Re: Unix Haters Date: 1996/04/01 Message-ID: <828361993snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145235696 x-nntp-posting-host: genesis.demon.co.uk references: x-mail2news-path: genesis.demon.co.uk organization: none reply-to: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1996-04-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes: >For me, typical Unix systms = AIX, IRIX, Dec UNIX, HPUX etc. Lots of >people rushed to say that Linux could run on small systems. True >enough, but Linux is NOT a "typical Unix system"! Intel based systems are probably still the most numerous commercial Unix systems out there (SCO, Unixware, Solaris plus others). These are full UNIX(tm) systems. >It is also true that Unix once ran fine on 128K byte PDP 11's, but I >am talking of a typical commercial Unix implementation, including X >and Motif. Right. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------