works@ucbvax.UUCP (11/25/85)
In article <275@tut.UUCP> jty@tut.UUCP (Jyrki Yli-Nokari) writes: >Masscomp offers a very nice-looking machine with MC68020 cpu >and their RTU (Real-Time Unix) v3.0 which is claimed to >be full SysV and full Berkeley 4.2 at the same time. > >Does anybody out there have any experiencies about this >or any Masscomp? Can I run GNUemacs on a Masscomp (RMS?). > >...mcvax!tut!jty.UUCP ! I know all about FORTH. >Jyrki Yli-Nokari ! I saw a TV-program about it once We have 5 masscomps here at RIT, 3 are faculty only, and the students are very happy about that. They'd be even happier if all 5 were faculty only, but that would upset the faculty a great deal. Around here we call them trashcomps or crashcomps. RTU v3.0 is pretty sad, too. RIT has the only source license in existance for it, and it's a good thing, cause the way I hear it, they have to keep cleaning up the bugs in the software. I wrote my own routine to send stuff to the printer because lpr doesn't work. I could tell you lots more bugs, but my concious mind can't take it, so my sub-concious makes me forget them 8-). ============================================================================== Steve Wall [Snoopy] @ Rochester Institute of Technology USnail: 6675 Crosby Rd, Lockport, NY 14094, USA Usenet: ...!ritcv!spw2562 Unix 4.2 BSD BITNET: SPW2562@RITVAXC VAX/VMS 4.2 Voice: Yell "Hey Steve!" Disclaimer: What I just said may or may not have anything to do with what I was actually thinking...
works@ucbvax.UUCP (12/02/85)
Steve Wall's recent comments about the masscomp do little to explain why his opinion is so negative. His remarks about RTU 3.0 probably are about the beta-test version since the actual released product is only just now getting into the hands of the users. I will have to agree that the masscomp software does have its problems, but much the same can be said of many companies' software (a good example is the Sun and Pyramid f77 compilers). It all depends on the market the machine is aimed at. In the case of the masscomp, the market was scientific, real-time computing originally. The Masscomp is the only machine I know of that was designed to run UNIX in a REAL-TIME environment (Please tell me if I am wrong). It has one of the highest performance/cost ratios and one of the best FORTRAN compilers available in its price range. There are problems as well. It may not run GNU-emacs. It does run Gosling-emacs in the BSD-4.1 style. I have not tried to port GNU as yet. I have tried a number of other 4.2 items, and if you plug in BSD 2.9 or 4.1 networking for those programs that use it, you make very few modifications. Almost all the System V stuff I have ported required no modification at all. As the case with many vendors, some customers are happy and some aren't. We are happy with Masscomp.
works@ucbvax.UUCP (12/05/85)
In article <9073@ritcv.UUCP> spw2562@ritcv.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >We have 5 masscomps here at RIT, 3 are faculty only, and the students are >very happy about that. They'd be even happier if all 5 were faculty only, >but that would upset the faculty a great deal. Around here we call them >trashcomps or crashcomps. Well, since the guy in the next cubicle thought this article was from me, I guess I'd better set the record straight. -sigh- This article was *not* from me, I have never used a Masscomp, and have no opinions about it. All I know about Masscomp is that trb works there. Please try and not confuse me, doghouse.TEK!snoopy [Snoopy classic :-) ] with spw2562@ritcv.UUCP [ new Snoopy :-) ] Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
works@ucbvax.UUCP (12/07/85)
We at KAI have been using MassComps for over 2 years now. While at first we have had a lot a problems with reliability, I believe the machines have become more stable. They are very nice to use as workstations, though we don't tend to do too much of that around here. My only complaint is that the documentation isn't always accurate and every software quality report I submit gets answered with "Haven't been able to duplicate that." As an aside, I found Mr. Walls' response to his criticisms quite juvenile.