todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) (07/31/89)
First off, I have ver. 3.5 right now. Is it going to cost me anything to upgrade to 3.5.1.4 (or is it a free bugfix)? Secondly, I haven't noticed any problems with 3.5. Are there any I should be aware of? I have 3.5 Meg (2 on motherboard + 1.5 on combo board), two extra serial ports, 67MB hard disk, and a DOS73 coprocessor. Everything runs fine. I even wrote a kernel-modifing ringback program to detect ringback so I can share my voice line with my computer and its external 2400 baud modem. I have hooked Mac's and terminals to my serial ports with no problems at all (never found that problem with BREAK not cycling the baud rate properly or BREAK hanging a terminal). I have been running this way for 1 1/2 years. So, if it ain't fixed, don't broke it? What are your opinions? Do I get a speed increase with 3.5.1.4? The only reason I'm seriously considering this in the first place is that the binaries that have been compiled for TeX, emacs, and gnu tend to be compiled for 3.5.1 and I have a feeling that they won't run on 3.5. -- Todd Day | todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us | ivucsb!todd@anise.acc.com "It's not the heat, it's the stupidity" --- Angry Poodle B-B-Q
jcm@mtunb.ATT.COM (was-John McMillan) (08/03/89)
There seems to be a little confusion here: 3.5 begat 3.5.1.4 3.51 replaced the above, I don't think 3.5.1.4 would benefit you w.r.t. the packages you mentioned. att!mtunb!jcm
ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) (08/04/89)
In article <1584@mtunb.ATT.COM> jcm@mtunb.UUCP (John McMillan) writes: >There seems to be a little confusion here: > 3.5 begat 3.5.1.4 > > 3.51 replaced the above, I don't think 3.5.1.4 would > benefit you w.r.t. the packages you mentioned. I forget the context that originally brought this up, but to clear up more confusion, if you've got 3.5, upgrading to 3.5.1.4 is trivial. Howver, if you want to upgrade to 3.51, you have to start from scratch. It's not an upgrade, it's a purchase. That's the bad news. The worse news is that during the fire sale, which ultimately determined the 3B1's price range, they never lowered the price of the software. Even today, even from the best VARs, the 3.51 foundation set + the development package will run several hundred dollars. If you really want 3.51, watch the ads in misc.forsale for a low-end (like .5x10) 7300. In some cases, you'll essentially get the 3.51 stuff for less than you could new, with the computer thrown in for *free*. Until I can do that, it looks like argon is stuck at 3.5. :-( BTW, has anyone set up the "Institute for Unix-PC Research" so that they could get the 3.51 source for the educational price ($3000)? :-) Hypothetical question: Suppose someone from the "Institute for Unix-PC Research" used legally licensed 3B1 OS source, purchased from AT&T, to hack up the general disk driver to use all the capability of the Milton board. How illegal would it be to give away the BINARY of the new driver? What about the general case of binary bugfix patches? -Ed
mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) (08/05/89)
In article <758@argon.UUCP> ebh@argon.UUCP (Ed Horch) writes: >Hypothetical question: Suppose someone from the "Institute for >Unix-PC Research" used legally licensed 3B1 OS source, purchased from >AT&T, to hack up the general disk driver to use all the capability of >the Milton board. How illegal would it be to give away the BINARY of >the new driver? What about the general case of binary bugfix patches? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the gd driver is linked directly into the kernel and can't be setup as a loadable device driver. Given this, you would have to distribute a new kernel which would probably not go over too well with the folks at AT&T. I found the reference about gd I was looking for. In the CTIX device driver manual they state: "Because syslocal(2) currently does not patch the gdsw table, drivers for the general disk-type devices are not loadable." -- Mark Dapoz (mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP) ...uunet!{mnetor,dptcdc}!hybrid!mdapoz I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy. -- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.
dsueme@chinet.chi.il.us (dave sueme) (08/05/89)
>Hypothetical question: Suppose someone from the "Institute for >Unix-PC Research" used legally licensed 3B1 OS source, purchased from >AT&T, to hack up the general disk driver... > How illegal would it be to give away the BINARY of >the new driver? What about the general case of binary bugfix patches? Depends entirely on the terms of the license granted by AT&T and what that license has to say about "derivative works". AT&T can grant or reserve any of the rights that they have (mostly all of the rights) and if they grant the right to distribute [possibly under given terms, e.g. no sales] then such distribution is as legal as drinking milk. If such right is not granted then copyright infringement is illegal enough: big fine (50,000 ? - I disremember), possible prison, CIVIL DAMAGES... uugh! David M. Sueme Attorney (Illinois)