neil@mupsy.UUCP (Neil Todd @ MUCS) (11/06/85)
A little while ago I asked whether anyone out there knows about putting 4.2 on an 8600, as I haven't heard a thing I must assume that the message got lost somewhere. So here we go again :- I'm going to be getting an 8600 in the January. I want to run BSD Unix. As I can't get 4.3 yet, I'm going to have hack 4.2 about. So the big question is - Has anybody else done this yet ? If you have please stand up and make yourself known ! Even if you haven't done it, but know whats involved I would like to hear from you. Neil Todd JANET:- neil@man.cs.ux UUCP:- ...!mcvax!ukc!mucs!neil ARPA:- neil%man.cs.ux@ucl.cs or ARPA: cbjones@ucl.cs
rsp@decvax.UUCP (Ricky Palmer) (11/18/85)
Ultrix-32 runs on the 8600. It runs like the proverbial "bat out of ...". Contact your DEC salesperson for further information. Ricky Palmer DEC - Ultrix Group rsp@decvax
steve@tove.UUCP (Steve D. Miller) (11/20/85)
We're running 4.3 on our 8600; I think that Chris Torek had to do a bit
of hacking to get out particular tty xface going (it's a dmz-32) , but other
than that, it ran right off.
It's pretty amazing (the 8600, that is...not that 4.3 isn't neat,
too) -- it takes 15 minutes from "config BRILLIG" to the time
the "make vmunix" is done, and that's compiling a vmunix from scratch.
The first time we compiled one, we all stood around and said, "WOW!!"
This compile took about 1/8th the time it takes on a 750 (also a 4.3
machine). Nice.
-Steve
--
Spoken: Steve Miller ARPA: steve@mimsy.umd.edu Phone: +1-301-454-4251
CSNet: steve@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!steve
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742mp@allegra.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) (11/25/85)
> Ultrix-32 runs on the 8600. It runs like the > proverbial "bat out of ...". Contact your DEC salesperson for further > information. Be aware that Ultrix for the 8600 is going to be in "field test" for the next few months, which means you have to run an essentially binary-only system with some quirks in the commands, networking, and RA81 and DMZ drivers (we've bought a source license, which entitles us to write letters to the powers-that-be to ask for sources on a module-by-module basis). On the plus side, it does run fast, they've ported the VMS Fortran compiler to it, and the documentation hints at optional system V compatibility at the C library level (if only the documentation said what environment variable needs to be set!)
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (11/30/85)
> Ultrix-32 runs on the 8600. It runs like the > proverbial "bat out of ...". Contact your DEC salesperson for further > information. (do I recall something about advertising being verboten?) > Ricky Palmer > DEC - Ultrix Group > rsp@decvax I wasn't able to find the original article for this, but from the subject line, I assume someone asked whether 4.2 ran on the 8600. ULTRIX IS NOT 4.2. IF THEY ASK FOR 4.2, DON'T ASSUME A CLOSE LOOKALIKE WILL DO!! Functionally, from the user level, it's very close, granted. BUT.... When we had a uVAXII here for evaluation it had Ultrix, and when I wanted to put in the /dev/std{in,out,err} driver and the load average syscall and the other kernel hacks, guess what I found? No kernel source! UNIX source comes with it (for universities). Ultrix source costs an obscene amount (we looked into getting it). And UNIX without source is pretty pointless (for us; for example, we had a grad student here whose thesis work would have been completely impossible without the kernel source). Guess what we'll be doing with our microvaxen! Right, running 4.3 (if they have it by that time) or moving 4.2 (otherwise). With UNIX source, when you find a bug, you fix it. The fix is available within a few hours, or days for the tough ones. With a vendor system like Ultrix, you send in an SPR and hope they deign to pay attention to it. Even when they do, you're lucky if it gets back, with or without a fix, within a month. Sorry for such a long and heated posting, but this sort of attitude "whaddya want 4.2 for when you can have Ultrix for 1000% more" really gets to me. -- der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Hacker: One who accidentally destroys / Wizard: One who recovers it afterward
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (12/03/85)
In article <339@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: >ULTRIX IS NOT 4.2. IF THEY ASK FOR 4.2, DON'T ASSUME A >CLOSE LOOKALIKE WILL DO!! Functionally, from the user level, >it's very close, granted. Actually, from the user level, it's not as close as I'd like. There are several programs missing, all the /usr/new stuff is absent, and a few other things along the same lines. From a programmer's point-of-view, however, it is almost identical. Binary images from a vanilla 4.2 system will work on an Ultrix system. (Guess why I can't remember specific names of programs that are missing.) The only problem with having Ultrix instead of 4.2bsd is if you want to make kernel mods, then: >No kernel source! Ultrix source costs an obscene amount. Yes, you don't get kernel source. Actually, you should be able to re-make a bunch of the binary files and libraries direct from your 4.2 source, but not everything, of course. The only real difficulty here is knowing what you can use from the 4.2 source and what has changed (for example, where is the window-system code). As for the cost, it is roughly equivalent to the sources for: SUN Pyramid Masscomp etc etc ad nauseum If you need to buy hiked up DEC hardware for some reason or other, then the fact that the source is available (cheaply) is a boon, otherwise, getting some non-DEC hardware and source license is equivalent in cost to getting DEC hardware and 4.2 source. > Sorry for such a long and heated posting, but this sort of attitude >"whaddya want 4.2 for when you can have Ultrix for 1000% more" really >gets to me. I agree with the statement here, but I think the poster sort of flew off the handle a bit. When you look at things objectively, there's a lot less of the "whaddya want ..." attitude than it seems. Oh. One other thing. With Ultrix, you can get DECnet support. That probably doesn't mean anything to most of you out there, but here, we're trying to put together a UNIX product, and it *needs* to have some kind of communication with our existing VMS products. It really is important. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
ber@enea.UUCP (Bjorn Eriksen) (12/06/85)
In article <84@calma.UUCP> radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) writes: >From a programmer's point-of-view, however, it is almost identical. >Binary images from a vanilla 4.2 system will work on an Ultrix >system. But if we look at the other end, that is Micro-Vax II, you will also miss all of /usr/man and /usr/games. I don't bother much about that but to get rid of the serious security bugs in sendmail, still in Ultrix 1.1, you can't move a binary image of sendmail from, say a 750 or 780 to a Micro-Vax. -- Bjorn Eriksen ENEA DATA Sweden UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,cernvax,diku,ircam,prlb2,tut,ukc,unido}!enea!ber ARPA: enea!ber@seismo.arpa
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (12/08/85)
In article <1114@enea.UUCP> ber@enea.UUCP (Bjorn Eriksen) writes: >In article <84@calma.UUCP> radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) writes: >>From a programmer's point-of-view, however, it is almost identical. >>Binary images from a vanilla 4.2 system will work on an Ultrix >>system. >But if we look at the other end, that is Micro-Vax II, you will also >miss all of /usr/man and /usr/games. Yes, that's one of the things in the uVAX-II Ultrix that I miss most. Normally, I remote login to some other system, and use the man pages from it. sigh >but to get rid of the serious security bugs in sendmail, still in >Ultrix 1.1, you can't move a binary image of sendmail from, say a 750 >or 780 to a Micro-Vax. I don't know about Ultrix 1.1. I'm running 1.2. Yes, you can move a binary imagen of sendmail from a 750 running vanilla 4.2 to the uVAX-II with Ultrix 1.2. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
broome@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Jonathan C. Broome) (12/09/85)
[line eater go home!] In article <95@calma.UUCP> radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) writes: >In article <1114@enea.UUCP> ber@enea.UUCP (Bjorn Eriksen) writes: >>But if we look at the other end, that is Micro-Vax II, you will also >>miss all of /usr/man and /usr/games. > >Yes, that's one of the things in the uVAX-II Ultrix that I miss most. >Normally, I remote login to some other system, and use the man >pages from it. sigh Or just use rman, the microVAX is what it was developed for ... =========================================================== Jonathan C. Broome University of California, Berkeley UUCP ...!ucbvax!broome ARPA broome@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ===========================================================
ber@enea.UUCP (Bjorn Eriksen) (12/10/85)
In article <95@calma.UUCP> radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) writes: >In article <1114@enea.UUCP> ber@enea.UUCP (Bjorn Eriksen) writes: > >> .... you can't move a binary image of sendmail from, say a 750 >>or 780 to a Micro-Vax. > >I don't know about Ultrix 1.1. I'm running 1.2. Yes, you can >move a binary imagen of sendmail from a 750 running vanilla >4.2 to the uVAX-II with Ultrix 1.2. Ok, my mistake. Sorry. There was no problem moving sendmail. It was the new config file I used, what else could it be. Nevertheless, the funny thing was that after recompiling sendmail on the uVAX-II, I had no problems with the very same config file. -- Bjorn Eriksen ENEA DATA Sweden UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,cernvax,diku,ircam,prlb2,tut,ukc,unido}!enea!ber ARPA: enea!ber@seismo.arpa