jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (04/26/88)
I have used the CURSES package extensively on the VAX, and the UNIX. Is something similar available for the Atari ST (preferably Megamax or Lazer)? In case you don't understand, CURSES is a window management library for the UNIX (which has been translated to the VAX as well). J.A.Cisek jac423@leah.albany.edu
karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) (04/27/88)
In article <711@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >I have used the CURSES package extensively on the VAX, and the UNIX. What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" and "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! :-) :-) :-) Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (04/28/88)
In article <3640@haddock.ISC.COM>, karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes: > In article <711@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: > >I have used the CURSES package extensively on the VAX, and the UNIX. > > What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" and > "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! Come on, Mr. Lint! EVERYONE knows that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC! (Ack! Phhpptttt! Panic: no TAS instruction! vmcore dumped) -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (04/29/88)
In article <3640@haddock.ISC.COM>, karl@haddock.UUCP writes: > Everyone knows that "VAX" and "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the > folks at Berkeley! They are? Too bad VAX VMS doesn't know it.... ;-) |\ |\ |\ |\ .--------------------. J.A.Cisek | \ | \ |\ |\ | \ | \ |\ \/ | Spectral Fantasies | jac423@leah.albany.edu | \| \|-\|_|| \| \|-\/\ `--------------------' jac423@uacsc1.albany.edu
u14@nikhefh.hep.nl (Daan Josephus Jitta) (04/29/88)
In article xx karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes: >In article xx jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >>I have used the CURSES package extensively on the VAX, and the UNIX. > >What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" and >"UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! > >Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint Sorry to disturb your dreams, but DEC has two operating systems for their VAXes: UNIX and VMS. And there are a lot of machines not coming from DEC running UNIX... UNIX and VAX are not *really* synonomous! Daan Josephus Jitta.
karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) (04/30/88)
In article <457@nikhefh.hep.nl> u14@nikhefh.hep.nl (Daan Jitta) writes: >Sorry to disturb your dreams, but DEC has two operating systems for >their VAXes: UNIX and VMS. And there are a lot of machines not coming >from DEC running UNIX... UNIX and VAX are not *really* synonomous! I know that. The smileys, which you deleted when you quoted me, were intended to denote sarcasm. The reference to Berkeley was a dig at the common BSD assumption that "all the world's a VAX". I didn't think I'd have to explain. I presume that when the original poster said "VAX" (in contrast to UNIX), he really meant "VMS". Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (04/30/88)
> > What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" > > and "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! "Mr. Lint" may explain this, but I'll mention it as well: Statements such as the above are generally referred to as "sarcasm". I somehow suspect Karl knows better than to equate VAXes and UNIX. Unfortunately, there are zillions of people out there who *don't* know better. > Come on, Mr. Lint! EVERYONE knows that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC! Gee, I don't "know that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC"; my current machine happens to have a SPARC chip in it, but I work with 68K machines and occasionally 80386 machines and VAXes as well. (The nice thing about a portable OS such as UNIX is that 99% of the time it doesn't matter what chip the machine uses; the same OS runs there.) It is conceivable that some Sun sales and marketing people may be trying to convey the *impression* that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC; such people should be tarred and feathered and dumped outside the city limits. > (Ack! Phhpptttt! Panic: no TAS instruction! vmcore dumped) No, SPARC has no instruction named TAS; the test-and-set instruction on SPARC is called LDSTUB (Atomic Load-Store Unsigned Byte). Have you actually *read* the architecture manual carefully, or do you just think a detailed knowledge of something is unnecessary if you want to make reasonable comments about it?
sarge@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Sargent) (04/30/88)
> > What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" and > > "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! > > Come on, Mr. Lint! EVERYONE knows that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC! > (Ack! Phhpptttt! Panic: no TAS instruction! vmcore dumped) > -- > /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! > /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! > / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! > / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes I left your .sig in since it seems the best comment on your post (and on those of others who have followed/will follow up in the same vein.) To wit: "VAX" and "Berkeley VAX/UNIX" are the items being identified. That's all the programmer's manual has ever promised. Yes, the situation is uncomfortable at times for code-porters (I'm one of them.) Yes, people who prefer 4bsdish systems to usgish systems (I'm guilty again!) have the "not-phone-company-approved" canard to explain to their management. Yes, Mr. Heuer joins a vast chorus of voices, all of which decry the situation with great wailing and gnashing of teeth. (And yes, the people who bring you 4.3 are -- reportedly: I haven't seen the fruits of their work -- improving the situation.) Now can we get on to something else? Steven Sargent Internet: sarge@scam.berkeley.edu/sarge%scam.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu TPCnet: {anywhere at all, really}!ucbvax!scam!sarge
limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) (04/30/88)
In article <2853@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> sarge@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Sargent) decries the sad state of UNIX, with references to the sentiment that "all the world's a VAX" ... > >Now can we get on to something else? I agree. Just think how portable a program will be, when its source will compile and run on Berkley UNIX, AT&T Unix, Xenix, Ultrix, SunOS 3.x for Sun3, SunOS 4.x for Sun3, SunOS 3.x for SPARC, SunOS 4.x for SPARC, and whatever we are selling on the Sun386i ... the mind boggles. But then, such a program would probably be free of all the various quirks of all those various operating systems. Why was this mainly UNIX thread being cross posted to comp.sys.atari.st? and what does it have to do with CURSES? -- Greg Limes [limes@sun.com] frames to /dev/fb
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (05/02/88)
In article <457@nikhefh.hep.nl>, u14@nikhefh.hep.nl (Daan Josephus Jitta) writes: > In article xx karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes: > Sorry to disturb your dreams, but DEC has two operating systems for > their VAXes: UNIX and VMS. And there are a lot of machines not coming > from DEC running UNIX... UNIX and VAX are not *really* synonomous! Wrong! DEC has several operating systems for the VAX, and NONE of them are named "UNIX." They have Ultrix, which is a DEC-bastardized port of 4.2BSD, which is sort of Unix. (My System V bigotry showing through again, I see.) They also have a real-time system called VAXELN (I think), and then there is good ol' RSX-11, which runs as a guest on VAXen with the PDP-11 compatibility mode. To sum up, COULD WE PLEASE GET RID OF THIS USELESS DISCUSSION ON COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST? Until VMS or one of the others runs on the ST, it really doesn't belong here! "Thank you for your support." -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (05/02/88)
In article <51411@sun.uucp>, guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: | > > What do you mean, "on the VAX and the UNIX"??? Everyone knows that "VAX" | > > and "UNIX" are synonymous! Just ask the folks at Berkeley! | | "Mr. Lint" may explain this, but I'll mention it as well: | | Statements such as the above are generally referred to as "sarcasm". I | somehow suspect Karl knows better than to equate VAXes and UNIX. | Unfortunately, there are zillions of people out there who *don't* know | better. | | > Come on, Mr. Lint! EVERYONE knows that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC! | | Gee, I don't "know that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC"; my current machine | happens to have a SPARC chip in it, but I work with 68K machines and | occasionally 80386 machines and VAXes as well. (The nice thing about a | portable OS such as UNIX is that 99% of the time it doesn't matter what chip | the machine uses; the same OS runs there.) | | It is conceivable that some Sun sales and marketing people may be trying to | convey the *impression* that UNIX is synonymous with SPARC; such people should | be tarred and feathered and dumped outside the city limits. | | > (Ack! Phhpptttt! Panic: no TAS instruction! vmcore dumped) | | No, SPARC has no instruction named TAS; the test-and-set instruction on SPARC | is called LDSTUB (Atomic Load-Store Unsigned Byte). | | Have you actually *read* the architecture manual carefully, or do you just | think a detailed knowledge of something is unnecessary if you want to make | reasonable comments about it? Yes, and once again, you net-landers have proved to have your heads firmly inserted in your hind ends. As you say, ``Statements such as the above are generally referred to as "sarcasm".'' (Note: placement of the period was your mistake, not mine). I was replying in the same sarcastic vein as Karl was. Of course, since I didn't follow it with 9 dozen lines of :-), you couldn't tell that, could you? No, this posting was not at all sarcastic, it was meant entirely as a chastisement to this pin-head, Guy Harris. :-( :-( :-( Does that convey the message? -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (05/02/88)
I just wanted to say that some of you are really a bunch of boneheads! I sparked off more replies by saying "The UNIX" and "The VAX" then by asking for help!!! |\ |\ |\ |\ .--------------------. J.A.Cisek | \ | \ |\ |\ | \ | \ |\ \/ | Spectral Fantasies | jac423@leah.albany.edu | \| \|-\|_|| \| \|-\/\ `--------------------' jac423@uacsc1.albany.edu
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (05/03/88)
> I was replying in the same sarcastic vein as Karl was. Of course, since I > didn't follow it with 9 dozen lines of :-), you couldn't tell that, could > you? Actually, it was rather easy for me to tell. The comment to which you refer was in response, of a sort, to various replies to Karl's posting, but not to yours; as it was a blanket response, I saw no point in separating it from my response to your posting. It was equally easy to tell that your posting was: 1) carelessly aimed (while some people at Sun may be trying to convey the impression that SPARC == UNIX, it is certainly not the corporate position that SPARC == UNIX) and 2) incorrect (assuming it is the SPARC that you are castigating for its lack of an instruction with the mnemonic TAS, I note again that it *does* have an instruction that performs the same type of function - it just doesn't happen to *call* it TAS). I *do* note that you didn't bother trying to defend *that* portion of your posting; I commend you for recognizing the indefensible (just as you didn't bother trying to defend your position that any processor lacking an increment-memory instruction is "unreasonable", or for that matter that such an instruction is guaranteed to be atomic)....
pete@tsc.dec.com (Pete Schmitt) (05/03/88)
In article <205@obie.UUCP>, wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > > In article xx karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes: > > Sorry to disturb your dreams, but DEC has two operating systems for > > their VAXes: UNIX and VMS. And there are a lot of machines not coming > > from DEC running UNIX... UNIX and VAX are not *really* synonomous! > > Wrong! DEC has several operating systems for the VAX, and NONE of > them are named "UNIX." They have Ultrix, which is a DEC-bastardized > port of 4.2BSD, which is sort of Unix. No, your wrong. DEC also will sell UNIX SYSV for VAXes. Developed in Holmdel, NJ. Guess who is the major buyer of DEC's SYSV for the VAX? AT&T that's who. pete schmitt ihnp4!tsc!pete
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (05/03/88)
[flame on] Once and for all, drop this rediculous VAX is not UNIX, UNIX is not VMS, SPARC is not BARK.... WHO CARES????? I had no idea that when I asked for help on the CURSES package for the ST and (oh how I regret it) said "THE Unix" and "THE Vax" I'd be asking to get my head ripped off and then cause others to rip each others heads off as well!!!! I got 3 answers to my original question, while this rediculous name thing is at least 20 messages big!!!! [flame off] |\ |\ |\ |\ .--------------------. J.A.Cisek | \ | \ |\ |\ | \ | \ |\ \/ | Spectral Fantasies | jac423@leah.albany.edu | \| \|-\|_|| \| \|-\/\ `--------------------' jac423@uacsc1.albany.edu
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (05/04/88)
In article <467@tsc.dec.com>, pete@tsc.dec.com (Pete Schmitt) writes: > > Wrong! DEC has several operating systems for the VAX, and NONE of > > them are named "UNIX." They have Ultrix, which is a DEC-bastardized > > port of 4.2BSD, which is sort of Unix. > > No, your wrong. DEC also will sell UNIX SYSV for VAXes. Developed in > Holmdel, NJ. Guess who is the major buyer of DEC's SYSV for the VAX? > AT&T that's who. Oops! I forgot that one, but I was still right about DEC not selling an OS called "UNIX." If you will check, the System V for VAXen is called "Holmdel 32V" or something like that. The PDP-11 version of Unix that DEC sells is called V7M11. Only AT&T gets to call Unix "Unix." The system I am typing this on right now is called "Microport System V/AT." No "Unix" in the name anywhere! -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one) (05/14/88)
In article <51436@sun.uucp>, limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) writes: > In article <2853@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> sarge@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Sargent) > decries the sad state of UNIX, with references to the sentiment that > "all the world's a VAX" ... > > > >Now can we get on to something else? > > I agree. Just think how portable a program will be, when its source will > compile and run on Berkley UNIX, AT&T Unix, Xenix, Ultrix, SunOS 3.x > for Sun3, SunOS 4.x for Sun3, SunOS 3.x for SPARC, SunOS 4.x for SPARC, > and whatever we are selling on the Sun386i ... the mind boggles. But > then, such a program would probably be free of all the various quirks of > all those various operating systems. Ah. Faith. A wonderful quality. Totally unrealistic in the naked light of Occam, but a wonderful quality, nonetheless. As long as library routines are not standardized, total machine independence is impossible, even if we were to grant that the bastardization of UNIX by the folks who brought you the ioctl() controlled modem of the 7300 bashing heads with the folks who bought you the un-cola of UNIX machines, SPARC, is a good idea. It isn't a good idea (opinion) and total independance is not really possible, even at the source level, given that people seem to still be going in 8 directions with "God's own machine". The crux is, of course (coerce?) the C compiler and it's cast of thousands, the library routines. We have portable code that runs on all of the above with compiler flags, but there is a great dichotomy between Berklix and ATTix (Berkely and AT&T UNIX, respectively)... ioctl(), curses.h, and termcap vs. (blechhh!) terminfo. At the very least, we have to change the methods we use to do I/O. At the most, we have to change design strategy and method of approach. For instance, SPARC. The C compiler does not support variable argument lists or alignment of structures or other such stuff (very well/well/at all). Code runs faster if you can make some assumptions that using such constructs aparrently thwart, and that sells more computers, in the short run, I suppose. An ideal environment certainly would allow total portability, with the possible exception of: #ifdef SUN #define NAME "A Sun System" #endif [Obviously, ANSI is not the answer here -- ed] But it is not likely, considering that major vendors are willing, nay, eager to sacrafice portability of applications written by developers for the sake of squeezing a few more drops of "marketability" (yes, the quotes ARE necessary) out of a machine. How marketable is something if no third party vendors produce anything for it because it is nearly impossible to use the C compiler? I would much rather spend my time programming C than porting somthing to a machine that runs something that looks like C, but isn't. [Perhaps SUN should be sued for "look and feel" on their compiler -- ed] Besides, you shouldn't lump SPARC in with UNIX machines sporting things resembling compilers. It gets me all worked up. | Terry Lambert UUCP: ...{ decvax, ihnp4 } ...utah-cs!century!terry | | @ Century Software OR: ...utah-cs!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry | | SLC, Utah | | These opinions are not my companies, but if you find them | | useful, send a $20.00 donation to Brisbane Australia... | | 'Admit it! You're just harrasing me because of the quote in my signature!' |
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/17/88)
In article <524@wsccs.UUCP> terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one) writes: >As long as library routines are not standardized, ... That's what ANSI X3J11 and IEEE 1003 are working on!
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (05/21/88)
Interestingly, I am writing this on a computer and operating system which REQUIRES that structures be packed so that some operands are aligned "wrong", so that they run slower than necessary. I am referring to my PS/2 Model 80 running Microsoft Windows. They require you to compile with a switch which packs structures inefficiently. They also recommend, but do not require that you DON'T optimize for speed. Finally, Microsoft windows does not support ANSI C, Fortran, Ada, Cobol, or standard Pascal. That's right, most standard C programs won't run as a real Windows program (as opposed to running "under" windows; this means you can't use their graphics calls in a standard C program.) The reason? Simple, all the calls to standard input and output are replaced by dummy do-nothing subroutines. They also ask you to close ALL files when you interface to their klunky "message - passing" input system. DougMcDonald