atk@tigger.colorado.edu (Alan T. Krantz) (12/05/89)
Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? If so - how much is it? atk | Mail: 1830 22nd street mail: atk@boulder.colorado.edu | | Apt 16 Vmail: Home: (303) 939-8256 | | Boulder, Co 80302 Office: (303) 492-8115 | ------------------------------------------------------------------
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/06/89)
atk@tigger.colorado.edu (Alan T. Krantz) writes: >Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? If so - how much >is it? We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V implementations with a C-Shell, but no real BSD. The closest thing is SunOS 4.0.x for the Sun 386, but that will only run on a Sun 386i. Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nsoc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (12/07/89)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >atk@tigger.colorado.edu (Alan T. Krantz) writes: >>Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? If so - how much >>is it? > >We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V >implementations with a C-Shell, but no real BSD. The closest thing is >SunOS 4.0.x for the Sun 386, but that will only run on a Sun 386i. > >Why SCO and various other makers of PC-Unix license from AT&T instead of BSD >is a mystery to me, but that's the way it works in the PC domain. BSD is a pig, don't get me wrong, I live and die by it (there's nothing worse than working on a Sys V machine, hitting ^Z, and having nothing happen). Sys V is leaner and is the preference of businesses; a much larger market than us poor academic types. Xenix is your best bet, its got a bunch of BSD extensions. --
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/07/89)
In article <841@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: |atk@tigger.colorado.edu (Alan T. Krantz) writes: |>Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? | |We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V You must not have heard of System V.4. I don't think it's been ported to the PC yet, but there's certainly a 386 version and by God, if it's not SunOS/BSD, it's good enough for me! Oh, don't worry, I'd bet any sum of money that it will be ported to the PC. You can get *anything* on a PC. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil AT&T Unix System V.4: Berkeley Unix for 386 PCs!
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/12/89)
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >BSD is a pig, don't get me wrong, I live and die by it (there's nothing >worse than working on a Sys V machine, hitting ^Z, and having nothing >happen). Sys V is leaner and is the preference of businesses; a much >larger market than us poor academic types. Xenix is your best bet, its >got a bunch of BSD extensions. A lot of it is personal preference. After using SunOS 4.0.x for awhile on a 386i and SPARCstation 1 and using SysV on AT&T 3B machines, I have found that BSD based Unix wins out by far. Remember, BSD added the networking interface and sockets to Unix, AT&T didn't originally. You are right about SCO Xenix however. I do know you can get TCP/IP for it and there is a BSD socket library available from SCO, but this may only be limited to the 386 version. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nsoc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/12/89)
In article <881@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: | A lot of it is personal preference. After using SunOS 4.0.x for awhile on a | 386i and SPARCstation 1 and using SysV on AT&T 3B machines, I have found that | BSD based Unix wins out by far. Remember, BSD added the networking interface | and sockets to Unix, AT&T didn't originally. Absolutely. I prefer Xenix to BSD, and when given a chance to get a 386i or 25MHz Dell I went with the Dell. I just like the virtual terminals paradigm better, and I can run X in one or more virtual terminals. Other people like BSD and {pick one here} windows. | | You are right about SCO Xenix however. I do know you can get TCP/IP for it | and there is a BSD socket library available from SCO, but this may only be | limited to the 386 version. You can get either the SCO TCP library or Excelan. I have Excelan, and it's been available for 286 for about three years, and I ran it in an AT for over two. Nice and solid. The SCO implementation includes SL/IP, and it works well. Haven't tried the SCO socket library... it looks like the right stuff. SCO has sendmail, Excelan will run uucp over ethernet. Both good products, we run them both here. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/19/89)
In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: [going back a bit...] > |>Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? > |We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V > You must not have heard of System V.4. >...by God, if it's > not SunOS/BSD, it's good enough for me! Well, V.4 is NOT BSD. It has most of the facilities of BSD systems, but that's hardly the same. Here's why I make the distinction: V.4 attempts to provide a way to get you all the facilities of V.3, Xenix, and 4.? BSD. Think just about the kernel level and system interface. If there are con- flicting facilities from Sys V and BSD, call them A and B, then there are several choices: - implement both A and B in kernel, provide different ways to get to each - implement A in kernel, provide library routine for B which uses kernel call for A and massages results - reverse the preceding (implement B, fudge for A) - implement something entirely new; implement replacements for both A and B as library routines to use the new facility I think all of these are used in various situations in V.4. They all have implications for performance (space occupied by kernel, time to mess around with the interface, possibly both). Now, you *may* be able to make a lot of SunOS, BSD, or Sys V code work on V.4, although there are differences which *will* require porting effort (trust me!). But even that falls short of the matter of how new code should be written for V.4 specifically--just because an interface happens to exist now (for compati- bility) doesn't mean you should use it. V.4 is a different system. The compatibility is there, and it's a damned good idea to have it, but it's still just compatibility, with all the compromise that implies. >...I don't think it's been ported > to the PC yet, but there's certainly a 386 version... ... > Oh, don't worry, I'd bet any sum of money that it will be ported to > the PC. You can get *anything* on a PC. It's going to be interesting to see how a kernel > 1 Mb with virtual memory gets ported to a PC! (Note that Phil is making a distinction between 386 and PC.) A gambling sort of person ought to take that bet. In the PC world, nothing short of a 386 has enough horsepower or reasonable addressing capability to make V.4 a believable proposition...I wouldn't even try it on an AT (i.e., 286). -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec18.180105.1974@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: |In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: |>...I don't think it's been ported |> to the PC yet, but there's certainly a 386 version... I didn't read this carefully enough. |> Oh, don't worry, I'd bet any sum of money that it will be ported to |> the PC. You can get *anything* on a PC. By PC, I meant 386 or better class machine. Certainly not 8088 or 80286. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Washington D.C. is the murder capital of the nation.
pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec18.180105.1974@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: [going back a bit...] > |>Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? > |We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V > You must not have heard of System V.4. >...by God, if it's > not SunOS/BSD, it's good enough for me! Well, V.4 is NOT BSD. It has most of the facilities of BSD systems, but that's hardly the same. Here's why I make the distinction: V.4 attempts to provide a way to get you all the facilities of V.3, Xenix, and 4.? BSD. [ .... ] It's going to be interesting to see how a kernel > 1 Mb with virtual memory gets ported to a PC! (Note that Phil is making a distinction between 386 and PC.) A gambling sort of person ought to take that bet. In the PC world, nothing short of a 386 has enough horsepower or reasonable addressing capability to make V.4 a believable proposition...I wouldn't even try it on an AT (i.e., 286). All true, but I want to add two or three data points: 1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you. Somebody like Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially their work; I think many people would love a cheap 4.3BSD on a cheap 80286. I sure would. I think that many Universities would be interested in running 4.3BSD on cheapo 80286 clones. From what I remember the guys to ask for are at Rice University. If you have a Unix source license they are prepared to give you the sources. 2) You can have Mach on an 80386. Mach is totally 4.3BSD API compatible, and has quite a few nice tricks in addition. Ask CMU or Mt. Xinu for details. 3) Rumours have it that Sun or somebody that licensed SunOS did port SunOS 3, which is really 4.2BSD, to generic 386s. Now that the Sun386i is not selling terribly well, Sun could make a few quick bucks by selling binary SunOS for generic 386s. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) (12/21/89)
In article <28455@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: <In article <1989Dec18.180105.1974@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: <|In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: <|>...I don't think it's been ported <|> to the PC yet, but there's certainly a 386 version... < <I didn't read this carefully enough. < <|> Oh, don't worry, I'd bet any sum of money that it will be ported to <|> the PC. You can get *anything* on a PC. < <By PC, I meant 386 or better class machine. Certainly not 8088 or <80286. As I understand the conversations in another net group, the closest we are going to get to BSD unix for the PCs is with AT&T SysV Release 4. -- harvard\ att!nicmad\ Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/ ARPA/INTERNET: <@spool.cs.wisc.edu,@astroatc:brown@vidiot>
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/21/89)
In article <28455@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: [intermediate attribution deleted] > |In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > |>...I don't think it's been ported > |> to the PC yet, but there's certainly a 386 version... >...I didn't read this carefully enough. Umm, but you wrote it! OK, no matter really; I guess I write stuff I don't read too (and usually regret not reading it:-) > |> Oh, don't worry, I'd bet any sum of money that it will be ported to > |> the PC. You can get *anything* on a PC. > > By PC, I meant 386 or better class machine. Certainly not 8088 or > 80286. But V.4 is already running on 386-class machines! (That's where it was first shown.) In fact, Phil, you pointed that out to us in your article. So...what sort of machine were you wanting to see it ported to? (I'm not trying to pick nits, tho it may seem that way...I'm just trying to figure out where we are now. What sort of machine are we wanting to see V.4 ported to. I'm glad Phil doesn't want to see it on an 8088!...and I think not expecting it on a 286 is wise even tho it is probably possible in some perverse theoretical sense.) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/21/89)
pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an > 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. >...Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially > their work;... Whoa! If you want a commercial product, and you don't want to get flamed into an alternate reality, there's a lot more to it than just "redistrib- uting"! You have to provide documentation and support, fix bugs, etc. It's not a small undertaking. >...I think many people would love a cheap 4.3BSD on a > cheap 80286. I sure would. I think that many Universities would > be interested in running 4.3BSD on cheapo 80286 clones... I might like one too, for the machine at home, but I think the commercial reality is that it's too easy and too cheap to get into a 386 machine for there to be a large enough market for a 286 system nowadays. I think Grandi is right in the general sense that there's a fair university market for cheap UNIX boxes, and BSD tends to be preferred in universities. But I really think the 386 (or at least the 386SX) is the processor of choice for such a system. That limits 286 interest to a declining population of existing machines. > 2) You can have Mach on an 80386. Mach is totally 4.3BSD API > compatible, and has quite a few nice tricks in addition. Ask CMU > or Mt. Xinu for details. CMU says they use it internally, but they don't make it available outside (as they do with the VAX, Sun, or RT versions). Mt. Xinu hasn't announced anything for the 386 yet (as far as I know), tho I'd be surprised if they didn't pick it up in their "second release" they've talked about late next year. Anyone have any better info on Mach-for-386 availability? > 3) Rumours have it that Sun or somebody that licensed SunOS did > port SunOS 3, which is really 4.2BSD, to generic 386s. Now that > the Sun386i is not selling terribly well, Sun could make a few > quick bucks by selling binary SunOS for generic 386s. Again, something like that is NOT quick bucks...you don't just toss things together and start shipping. There's a fair hardware difference between a 386i and "any old AT clone" that has to be supported in an open-market 386 system. Beyond that, there's an interesting question of whether Sun is interested in the 386 at all, given the recent announcement that the next upgrade of SunOS won't appear on the 386i. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec18.180105.1974@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: |It's going to be interesting to see how a kernel > 1 Mb with virtual memory |gets ported to a PC! (Note that Phil is making a distinction between 386 |and PC.) A gambling sort of person ought to take that bet. I was assuming a 386. My specification of a PC was with regard to the necessary drivers, if any, for a 386 PC. I don't know what AT&T assumes, it might have been a Sun 386i, or a Sequent, or an Intel box, or who knows. In any case, AT&T doesn't do retail, you need an ISC or SCO to sell shrink wrapped kernel binaries. THAT's what I meant by "port". -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Ann Landers says "Let's talk about legalizing drugs."
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec20.184443.29798@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: |> By PC, I meant 386 or better class machine. Certainly not 8088 or |> 80286. | |But V.4 is already running on 386-class machines! (That's where it was |first shown.) In fact, Phil, you pointed that out to us in your article. |So...what sort of machine were you wanting to see it ported to? I want to see (and expect to see) shrink-wrapped V.4 kernel binaries for 386 PCs. Not "386 machines", that could be a Sun 386i. Not PCs, that could be an 8088 box. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Ann Landers says "Let's talk about legalizing drugs."
cassidy@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Cassidy Lynar) (12/25/89)
In article <1989Dec20.202300.874@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an >> 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... > >The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming >along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working >system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. > >>...Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially >> their work;... Yea, right! ISC distribute a working product? It would seem to me that once again, unpaid, college students have produced a reasonably working product... -cassidy ps. Sheesh! I am in a flaming mood today :) But it feels great with the temps outside being 20 or so :)
pat@orac.pgh.pa.us (Pat Barron) (12/26/89)
In article <1989Dec20.202300.874@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an >> 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... > >The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming >along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working >system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. I keep hearing about these folks who did the 4.3 port to the 80286, but I've never seen any mention of who they are. Does anyone know who exactly is doing the port? I'd like to get in touch with them. Thanks! --Pat. -- Pat Barron Internet: pat@orac.pgh.pa.us - or - orac!pat@gateway.sei.cmu.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!apexepa!sei!orac!pat - or - ...!pitt!darth!orac!pat
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/27/89)
I'm told that SunOS for the 386i was developed on a Compaq. I've even heard it from a few Sun types (informally). They elected not to sell it. So the answer seems to be "There is a BSD port for the 386 but you can't have it." -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/30/89)
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > > I'm told that SunOS for the 386i was developed on a Compaq. I've even >heard it from a few Sun types (informally). They elected not to sell it. >So the answer seems to be "There is a BSD port for the 386 but you can't >have it." Quite possible, but since we can't have it then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */