News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Concise, opinionated history of the BSD/SystemV split. Parent comment

Re:Concise, opinionated history of the BSD/SystemV split by yuhong on Wednesday January 28, 2015 @07:03PM (#8963445)
The point being that ANSI C compliance required compiler changes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Concise, opinionated history of the BSD/SystemV split by dalke on Thursday January 29, 2015 @02:10AM (#8964758)
How does that affect anything? Unbundling doesn't depend on changing the compiler. I don't see how the business model is affected by ANSI standardization. How would things have been different if C were standardized in 1984 instead?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Concise, opinionated history of the BSD/SystemV split by yuhong on Thursday January 29, 2015 @04:53AM (#8965197)
It may be that vendors uses it as an opportunity to unbundle (eg HP-UX).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Concise, opinionated history of the BSD/SystemV split by dalke on Thursday January 29, 2015 @07:14AM (#8965650)
I don't understand how it makes a difference. Unbundling is a sales strategy. They could have unbundled even without changing the compiler at all.

In any case, the literature I read (see earlier links) included discussion about improved optimizations, so even without ANSI there was a differentiation between the new unbundled compiler and the old bundled one.

Why do you think it's anything more than a coincidence?

[ Parent | on HN ]