ndeng@EULER.BERKELEY.EDU (09/29/89)
Hi All! I posted a request on the net on Sept.27 asking information about differences of various Unix packages for 386 PC and received 9 responses in just one day. Thanks for all who have responded my post and patiently give me their informative experiences/recommendations. I tried to thank everyone personally but some mails bounced back. Also I thank all who showed interest on this topic. I promised to post a summary. Here it goes. But before you start reading, I should warn you: It is VERY long! >600 lines. ( :-( ) So if you don't have time, just save it or ignore it. BTW, If I received more information, I shall post another summary later. ndeng@euler.berkeley.edu ================================================================================ davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: | ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include | all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system like | 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities, | even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) Most of the packages have the FORTRAN and troff as options. Xenix includes some BSD programs and systems calls which make portability much better than raw SysV. | | ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I | compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? You should be able to recompile most mainframe packages to run on any of the 386 UNIX variants. See above for BSDisms. | | ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary | tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 | or higher resolution monitors? X is available for all flavors, it's changing too fast for me to keep up. Everyone seems to agree that the INteractive is the fastest. The SCO package is X11R2, due to update by the end of the year. Not very fast, but seems reliable. | | ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of resource | sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, printer, etc.) | and multitasking. Also, how much overhead will the package take in the | RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the package? Does | this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with | standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this | window? --- not just for file transfers) The INteractive filesystem seems a bit faster than Xenix or most SysV versions, the SCO UNIX (not Xenix) uses the fast filesystem and is a bit faster than any of the others, particularly after the filesystem "ages" and gets fragmented a bit. All offer some form of DOS under UNIX. None is perfect, but I have been able to run all my business applications under SCO VP/ix. The version of DosMERGE (ix/386) I had was early and buggy, but it's been enhanced since then. The SCO C compiler generates DOS code as an option. The others don't. | | ---- Bugs, strong/weak points, and your comments/suggestions/recommendations After evaluating all of the systems at work I bought Xenix for home with my own money. It has been *very* solid. System administration is not 100% SysV (or Berkeley) but seems to work well. The C compiler generates code for Xenix/386, Xenix/286, Xenix/8086 and SysIII, and MS-DOS. The SCO UNIX development set includes the ATT compiler as well, and CodeView for a debugger. SCO support is fair. After dealing with a number of other vendors I think it is still the best. If you are doing serious work on the system plan to spend the $300-400 (they have sales) for support each year. Worth it if you're commercial, else you get 30 days, then ask the net. ________________________________________________________________ This is a judgement call... I like SCO but it's expensive. If you want to get something reasonable for personal use, you might look into ESIX from Everex. I have heard reasonable things about it, but the compiler, etc, is pretty stock ATT. --- 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 ============================================================================= terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes: In article <8909270503.AA28536@euler.Berkeley.EDU> you write: > >Hi All! > >I am considering to purchase a UNIX operating system for my new 386 PC >machine. Having read all advertisements about different packages (Bell Technology UNIX 386 system V, >Microport UNIX/386, 386/ix, SCO Xenix 386, etc, etc.), I got rather >confused on which is the "best" one for a 386-based machine, since all of >them claimed that their products are the best. Therefore, I decide to >turn to the netland for help. >Can someone who is using unix on a 386-pc machine tell me his experience about >the good/bad points about one of the packages? Specifically, I am most >interested in the following aspects:: Before I start, I'm biased. I use and like SCO's products. > > ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include > all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system like > 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities, > even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) f77 and TeX, and troff for HP Lasers are available, but not included. Sockets, TCP/IP, complete development system are all available from SCO. > > ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I > compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? I did not know VMS/Ultrix and 4.x BSD ran on mainframes. They are really minis. These Unix implementations are SysV based and the systems you mention are Berkeley based, so things will not port directly. They usually can be made to run though. > > ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary > tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 > or higher resolution monitors? Drawback of SCO. They are shipping X11R2 with NO high res support beyond VGA. > > ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of resource > sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, printer, etc.) > and multitasking. Not really. > Also, how much overhead will the package take in the > RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the > package? You should start with at least 80 MB of disk space and 4 MB of RAM. You will quicly need more. > Does > this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with > standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this > window? --- not just for file transfers) VP/ix is available, but obviously not all DOS programs will work with it. Most major packages will work, but some will not. If you have more specific questions, I will try to answer them for you. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry ============================================================================= ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!jca@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John C. Archambeau) wirtes: ndeng@EULER.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >I am considering to purchase a UNIX operating system for my new 386 PC >machine. Having read all advertisements about different packages (Bell Technology UNIX 386 system V, >Microport UNIX/386, 386/ix, SCO Xenix 386, etc, etc.), I got rather >confused on which is the "best" one for a 386-based machine, since all of >them claimed that their products are the best. Therefore, I decide to >turn to the netland for help. >Can someone who is using unix on a 386-pc machine tell me his experience about >the good/bad points about one of the packages? Specifically, I am most >interested in the following aspects:: > > ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include > all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system like > 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities, > even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) > > ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I > compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? > > ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary > tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 > or higher resolution monitors? > > ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of resource > sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, printer, etc.) > and multitasking. Also, how much overhead will the package take in the > RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the package? Does > this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with > standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this > window? --- not just for file transfers) > > ---- Bugs, strong/weak points, and your comments/suggestions/recommendations The best implementation of Unix on a 386 box is SunOS 4.0.1 on a Sun 386i, but this will only run on a Sun 386i. If you have a generic 386 box, I then recommend SCO Xenix 386. MicroPort has gone bankrupt. I've used AT&T's on AT&T boxes and my attitude about that is if they can't get it right on their own machine, they sure as hell aren't going to get it right on another machine. What you need is the full blown developer's kit, text processing tools, etc. for SCO Xenix 386. Since both the Sun 386i and SCO Xenix use the same DOSMerge type program which is VP/ix, it should run nicely. As for X-Windows. I was brought up on a non-windowing environment, so I can't give you an opinion on that with SCO Xenix 386, but if windowing is a HIGH PRIORITY then I would strongly recommend getting a Sun 386i/250 with the SunView GKS developer's library. I admit that you are paying over $20,000 for the system, but the Sun's handle windowing the best. I've heard mixed opinions about X-Windows. I will warn you about a Sun 386i if you do plan on getting on eventually, because it is so dependant upon yellow pages, it is buggy. I have already found several bugs in the 386i's implementation of YP. If you have the money for a Sun 386i, get that, if not, get SCO Xenix 386 (complete developer's toolkit, kernel, text processing system, and VP/ix) and it will suit your needs for everything short of X-Windows which I can't give you an opinion on since I don't use it. Note that I have yet to see a BSD Unix implementation on a 386 other than SunOS which is based on BSD 4.2. Everything else out there seems to be System V based. But unless you are developing System V software, it doesn't matter since SCO Xenix does support the C-Shell which does make everything look BSD when it comes to the user interface. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ ============================================================================= point!wek@ddsw1.mcs.com (Bill Kuykendall) writes: >Can someone who is using unix on a 386-pc machine tell me his experience abo ut >the good/bad points about one of the packages? Specifically, I am most >interested in the following aspects:: > > ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include > all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system li ke > 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities , > even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) I'm running Interactive Systems 2.0.1. It isn't perfect, but I like it. As far as completeness goes, you can buy as much or as little as you like. There are a number of bundled packages available. Everything you asked about is available with the possible exception of F77 (or perhaps I just havent seen it), but you should be aware that all of the common 386 unixes are System V 3.2 -- not BSD. The only way to get BSD on a 386 is to buy it bundled on a Sun 386i. > ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I > compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? Programs that you wish to move from another architecture will have to be recompiled. My experience has been that if an application (source of course) has been ported to System V.2 or higher for any machine, it will compile under 386/ix with a minimum of tweaking. > ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary > tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 > or higher resolution monitors? I don't have the X11 module. There has been some discussion of it in comp.unix.i386. There are 1024x768 systems that are supported, but I can't say which, and I'm certain that all are not. > ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of >resource > sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, printer, etc.) > and multitasking. Also, how much overhead will the package take in t he > RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the package? Doe s > this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with > standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this > window? --- not just for file transfers) There are problems with the standard AT async ports and ISC's driver is the pits. The problem with the ports can be lessened by replacing the 16450 uarts with 16550As and running a third party driver. I heartily recommend an intelligent multiport card if you want to use high speed modems though. There have been reported problems with TCP/IP on ethernet boards, but others claim to have it working. The problem seems to be low throughput (on the order of 50 bytes/sec) and I have not seen a posting with a fix. DOS windows are accomplished via VP/ix, another module. I have it and it works very well. It creates a virtual machine, allocates a meg of ram to it and loads a real copy of 'DOS (3.3 optimized for vpix comes with, but you can use any flavor you like). Use of the 20k redirector tsr to allow you to use the unix filesystem under 'DOS is optional. You can have dedicated honest-to-goodness DOS partitions if you like (needed for some copy protected software) but this is also optional. ISC unix needs about 800k of ram in my configuration with a few additional drivers loaded. For the Applications Development Platform (unix, vpix, C compiler, source code control system, text processing workbench, tenplus user interface, et al you'll need about 15 MB of storage for files. With 4 MB of ram you should probably allow another 10MB for swap space, at least 5MB for /tmp and whatever is appropriate for your other needs. I wouldn't attempt it in less than 60MB. And while ISC will run with only 2 MB of ram, I wouldn't want less than 4MB, especially with VP/ix. Hope this helps. Bill Kuykendall ...ddsw1!point!wek ============================================================================== mtxinu!nwnexus.WA.COM!tim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Anderson) writes: a quicky here... Microport is in the Chapter 11 Bankrupt zone, so I would stay away from them. SCO is owned in a big way by Microsoft, so if you want to line Bill (OS/2) Gates pockets than feel free to go with SCO. Interactive has big box UNIX systems and they did the original port. They also have X for lots of graphics boards (even some 1280X1024 ones). They have some new 'open desktop (tm of SCO) killer' that has lots of good things rolled into one. May want to look into that.... ============================================================================== madd@CS.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes: In article <8909281735.AA28181@euler.Berkeley.EDU> you write: |Having read all advertisements about different packages (Bell Technology UNIX 386 system V, |Microport UNIX/386, 386/ix, SCO Xenix 386, etc, etc.), I got rather |confused on which is the "best" [...] I've personally used ENIX (or whatever they call it now), Xenix, and ISC 386/ix. Of them, I like ISC's package the best. Xenix is a hybrid; many things won't react the way you expect them to. It *does* run the fastest of all of the UNIX's in pure execution speed, but looses to ISC in filesystem throughput, so in my experience they basically seem to perform the same. Given the price difference between ISC and Xenix, ISC is by far the better deal. The other UNIX's (with the exception of Bell Technologies which I have no opinion about) fall below both ISC and Xenix by my criterion. |Specifically, I am most interested in the following aspects:: | | ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include | all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system like | 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities, | even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) Both Xenix and ISC give you all the generic tools, and will sell you a development package with cc/make/etc in it and a documentation package with nroff/troff. The latter is pretty expensive in both cases. The 'cc' in the Xenix package seems to be written by Microsoft; it had all the strangenesses that I associate with Microsoft compilers (ie it was flaky). The 'cc' in 386/ix is the one AT&T uses in SysV/386 and is usable, although some things will break the optimizer (eg GNU emacs fns.c). | ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I | compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? If it's a SysV program, you ought to be able to just compile it on either 386/ix or Xenix to get it to work, with some exceptions that are noted in the documentation where the library routines/system calls don't quite match up to spec. If it's a shell script, expect it to work under 386/ix but not to work under Xenix -- their shells, particularly csh, are remarkably braindead and many utilities don't work quite the same as they would under SysV. | ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary | tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 | or higher resolution monitors? If you need X, 386/ix is your only choice. They have the best X server for the 386 which I have ever used, supporting approximately 42 different displays. Get a three-button mouse, though. I've seen Bell Tech running X, but that was awhile ago and with special hardware so I don't know how well it works or what their package provides. | ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of resource | sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, printer, etc.) | and multitasking. Also, how much overhead will the package take in the | RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the package? Does | this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with | standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this | window? --- not just for file transfers). Is there any compatibility | problem with a 386 PC (I mean, a clone using AT bus and Pheonix BIOS)? This is a big question. As for resource sharing (general performance), each has their ups and downs. Xenix wins hands down on minimum required RAM and fixed disk, although I found its treatment of larger disks to be very naive, not even handling separate root and /usr partitions well. You'll still want at least an 80Mb disk to do development and X under either system, although I'm squeezing by with 65mb under 386/ix (barely). Both systems have (or have the option of having) MS-DOS run as a task under UNIX. They work reasonably well unless you want heavy I/O throughput (eg running a communications program). I believe they're both based on VP/ix so they'll both behave similarly. | ---- Cost for the package (Basic system and complete package), and cost | of technical support (Does the company offer good technical support | or their phone lines are always busy?). As I said, 386/ix is a lot cheaper than Xenix. In fact, everything is a lot cheaper than Xenix. You can up your hardware to run 386/ix for less money than it would take to buy the same Xenix package. All of them will cost you more than $1500 for a full development system with X windows at discounted prices. The 386/ix workstation developer package retails for $1999 (this has everything but nroff/troff) but may be had for about $1600 if you look around. If you intend to do VAR work, you should call Interactive since they have a fairly attractive program for new VARs. As for technical support, I never called SCO so I have no opinion. I've had mixed results from ISC -- sometimes the tech people just don't know, although opinions from them from the net seem to be incredibly accurate and timely. They were always helpful even if occasionally stumped (my circumstances were pretty bizarre, though -- I only called them when *I* was stumped). | ---- Bugs, strong/weak points, and your comments/suggestions/recommendations. | Also, is the package very easy to install so I only need to buy a "box" | and install myself, or I'd better to ask the company to install the | package for me? Neither Xenix nor 386/ix is particularly difficult to install if you have UNIX adminstration experience. If you don't, they're still pretty easy to install if you don't try to customize anything. Xenix breaks down immediately if you customize, 386/ix is far better but still not as good as it might be. 386/ix's manuals seemed to be better on many counts and they follow SysV/386 so you can get non-ISC manuals and expect them to be pretty accurate. If you have any other questions or require clarifications, feel free to write to me at the address below. jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com ============================================================================ ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!jca@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John C. Archambeau) writes: It would probably be better if you install it yourself since you will probably be maintaining the beast it's being run on. Installing *nix based software is more or less the same. Load it in from floppies or tape. A bit of advice, get as big of a hard drive as you can afford with 28ms or faster average seek time. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ ============================================================================== From: ames!apt.UUCP!brian@cad.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Litzinger) writes: > I am considering to purchase a UNIX operating system for my new 386 PC > machine. Having read all advertisements about different packages > (Bell Technology UNIX 386 system V, > Microport UNIX/386, 386/ix, SCO Xenix 386, etc, etc.), I got rather > confused on which is the "best" one for a 386-based machine, since all of > them claimed that their products are the best. Therefore, I decide to > turn to the netland for help. > Can someone who is using unix on a 386-pc machine tell me his experience about > the good/bad points about one of the packages? We are a reseller of UNIX based products. We were resellers of Microport, are resellers of Interactive, and should soon be resellers of ESIX, and SCO. We have evaluated Microport, Interactive, and Xenix 2.2. We will soon be evaluating SCO UNIX, and ESIX. We like Interactive the best. I should point out that our evaluation are based on performance, not price. > Specifically, I am most > interested in the following aspects:: > > ---- The "completeness" of the package: (i.e., Does this package include > all necessary tools which can be found in a mainframe unix system like > 4.xBSD or VMS/Ultrix, like cc, f77, awk, grep,..., and all utilities, > even a typesetting program like TeX or troff) No f77, but I don't think any of them have f77. The typesetting is optional. Everything else is there. > > ---- The compatibility of the package with mainframe systems: can I > compile/without recomiple to run mainframe programs? I don't think I understand this question. > ---- The handling of X-Windows: does this package include all necessary > tools to use X-windows with high resolution drivers for 1024x768 > or higher resolution monitors? Is an option. Supports VGA's up to 1024x768 and a bunch of 1280x1024 custom boards such as Microfield and Matrox. > ---- Any specific problems with a PC machine, like effectiveness of > resource sharing (CPU, Hard disk, communication port/ethernet, > printer, etc.) and multitasking. I'm not sure I understand the question. Everything seems to work fine. > Also, how much overhead will the package take in the > RAM and how much disk space have to be reserved for the package? With all the options you will need a minimum of 4Mb. The Basic system will run in 2Mb. The minimum disk space is 40Mb, however, you'd realistically want to have a minimum of 60Mb, and 80Mb would be comfortable. > Does this package include a "DOS window" and how compatible is it with > standard DOS environment? (i.e., can I run DOS programs under this > window? --- not just for file transfers). Is there any compatibility > problem with a 386 PC (I mean, a clone using AT bus and Pheonix BIOS)? DOS under UNIX is an option. You can have as many DOS windows as you wish. You can run just about any application that isn't totally reckless. For example, the DOS chkdsk command doesn't work. However, things like Lotus, XtPro, Masm, Microsoft C & AutoCAD seem to work fine. > > ---- Cost for the package (Basic system and complete package), and cost > of technical support (Does the company offer good technical support > or their phone lines are always busy?). PRODUCT 2 Users Multi-user Basic UNIX V.3.2 349 695 Software Development System 695 695 Text processing workbench 195 345 DOS under UNIX 395 795 TCP/IP & NFS 595 795 X11 Developers Package 795 795 There are discounts for buying things in certain combinations. I don't think technical support costs anything from Interactive, but I might be wrong. We get ours for free, but end-user's might have to pay something. We support our customers directly so they come to us with problems not Interactive. When we do call Interactive the support is very good. They don't know if we are an end-user or reseller till after they answer so I'd say most people don't have trouble getting through. > ---- Bugs, strong/weak points, and your comments/suggestions/recommendations. There are two bugs outstanding. One, the 1024x768 for Tseng based VGA cards does not work correctly in color mode, and two, their is a small bug in the NFS they licensed from Lachman Associates, however, the NFS bug has not been a problem. > Also, is the package very easy to install so I only need to buy a "box" > and install myself, or I'd better to ask the company to install the > package for me? The packages are easy to install. Just keep sticking the diskettes in. However it can take a long time. When you buy clone equipment their are always compatibility risks, so you might find the system fails to install because this or that doesn't work, or this or that wasn't configured correctly. Having to re-install several times while the bugs are worked out can be very time consuming. > ndeng@euler.berkeley.edu I should point out that we are not generally in the business of selling UNIX software. Our main business is selling our 386 PC based workstations and servers. Since you already have you machine you won't be interested in our stuff, but I thought you'd appreciate the benefit of our time spent evaluating UNIX software for ourselves. If you are in the future interested in purchasing complete workstations or servers just email me and I'll send you information. <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> UUCP: {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian brian@apt.UUCP <> VOICE: 408 370 9077 FAX: 408 370 9291 =========================================================================== From: talarian!scott@uunet.uu.net (Scott Weitzenkamp) writes: I have a BellTech 386 25MHz workstation with the BellTech System V/386 3.2 Unix. BellTech claims to use the same binaries as AT&T. I bought from them because they were local (Fremont, CA). Since then they have been bought by Intel, and all the tech support people have been moved to Oregon (so much for fast turnaround time!!!). I can understand some upheaval, but now I have a HELL of a time getting any support. My sales rep never returns my calls. For completeness, vanilla System V leaves a lot to be desired, when compared to SunOS or Ultrix. No TCP/IP, no NFS, no YP, no job control in csh, etc. The MIT X11 source will not compile out of the box. The X11 I have is also from BellTech (it's AT&T's XWIN product plus a BellTech driver for my Blit graphics card and monitor). It's not speedy, and its "old" (based on MIT X11 Release 2, not Release 3). I will probably be getting an Ethernet card soon, and it looks like it will cost about $1500 to add Ethernet, TCP/IP, and NFS. I've seen two TCP/IP/NFS packages available: Lachman and Streamlined. Lachman seems to have a superior product. I sure wish I could have bought a DECstation 2100 :-) Scott Weitzenkamp Talarian Corporation scott@talarian.uu.net uunet!talarian!scott --- Scott Weitzenkamp UUCP: uunet!talarian!scott Talarian Corporation ARPA: scott@talarian.uu.net "Welcome to the late show, starring NULL and void" -- Men At Work Mail responses, and I'll summarize to the net. ========================================================================== That's the end of the summary.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/29/89)
In article <8909290807.AA17277@euler.Berkeley.EDU>, ndeng@EULER.BERKELEY.EDU writes: [ summary of "which UNIX" replies ] I would not question any of the opinions in the replies, but there were two statements which described problems with Xenix which don't exist, and which might appear to exist if someone exceeded their understanding of the system. | This is a big question. As for resource sharing (general | performance), each has their ups and downs. Xenix wins hands down on | minimum required RAM and fixed disk, although I found its treatment of | larger disks to be very naive, not even handling separate root and | /usr partitions well. I haven't seen any problems in about two years of Xenix/386. ie. it is not better or worse at handling partitions than Ultrix, SunOS, or any other SysV port. Any SysV without symbolic links has limitations about where to put things, but Xenix has no special limitiations of which I'm aware. SCO UNIX has a fast filesystem, I don't know if s-links have been added. | | Neither Xenix nor 386/ix is particularly difficult to install if you | have UNIX adminstration experience. If you don't, they're still | pretty easy to install if you don't try to customize anything. Xenix | breaks down immediately if you customize, 386/ix is far better but | still not as good as it might be. There are many things which are actual shortcomings of Xenix, but costomization isn't one of them. There are many people, including me, who customize Xenix frequently. So far this year I have setup for MFM, two brands of RLL, and ESDI controllers, including running two controllers. I have tried two brands of multiline serial card. No problems with customize at all, I suspect the poster just doesn't know what s/he's doing. -- 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
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (09/30/89)
In article <629@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: || Xenix wins hands down on || minimum required RAM and fixed disk, although I found its treatment of || larger disks to be very naive, not even handling separate root and || /usr partitions well. | | I haven't seen any problems in about two years of Xenix/386. ie. it |is not better or worse at handling partitions than Ultrix, SunOS, or |any other SysV port. Any SysV without symbolic links has limitations |about where to put things, but Xenix has no special limitiations of |which I'm aware. In particular I was referring to installation. The installation scripts that I used (sorry, can't remember what Xenix version) allowed the creation of separate root and /usr partitions but repeatedly commented that I didn't have enough space on root to hold what I was installing even though it was being installed on /usr. You could still do the installation, but it really bitched about it. The Xenix development stuff puts a lot of libraries in /lib instead of /usr/lib, which means you have to have a very large root partition or things won't fit. I prefer to keep root as small as possible so as not to loose too much when it gets smashed. My biggest problem with Xenix was that it absolutely, positively refused to allow me to allocate a 16mb swap partition. No way, no how would it let me use more than 11mb. I'm not sure if this might have been due to bad cylinders on my disk or not, but I was pretty unhappy about it anyway. | SCO UNIX has a fast filesystem, I don't know if s-links have been added. The version of SCO Xenix which I used did not. None of the 386 UNIX's which I have used supported symbolic links (I miss them dearly). | There are many things which are actual shortcomings of Xenix, but |costomization isn't one of them. There are many people, including me, |who customize Xenix frequently. [...] Do you customize by script, or by hand? None of the 386 UNIX's were particularly difficult to customize by hand, but 386/ix had fairly good scripts for doing it automatically. I'm not talking about adding a device driver here, I'm talking about tuning and partitioning. |No |problems with customize at all, I'm sorry to disagree with you. In addition to the inadequacies I have mentioned, try installing TCP/IP sometime. I did. It then took me a considerable amount of time to tune the STREAMS parameters so that TCP/IP would *work* -- the TCP/IP package did not increase many parameters to realistic ranges although it did alter several STREAMS parameters. In contrast, the 386/ix installation's default settings worked like a dream. |I suspect the poster just doesn't know |what s/he's doing. It's possible that we're not talking about the same version of the software. In any case, I gave honest, experienced opinions about two of the UNIX's in question. As both a user and a developer, I'm not entirely sure I'd like to use Xenix anyway; it's environment is sufficiently strange as to make development somewhat difficult. Take my advice or leave it, but don't question my abilities. jim frost madd@std.com
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/30/89)
In article <629@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, I wrote: | In article <8909290807.AA17277@euler.Berkeley.EDU>, ndeng@EULER.BERKELEY.EDU writes: | [ summary of "which UNIX" replies ] | | I would not question any of the opinions in the replies, but there | were two statements which described problems with Xenix which don't | exist, and which might appear to exist if someone exceeded their | understanding of the system. Please, allow me clarify. The statements which I feel are not correct were not the statements of ndeng. They were taken from a summary of information mailed to him by others. I lost the attribution of the statements (they may not be from the same person, even) when I edited. Again, my apology to ndeng for any implication that he was the holder of those opinions, and the the poster(s) with whom I have disagreed if I accidentally took your statement out of context or misinterpreted what you were saying. -- 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
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/30/89)
In article <39233@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes: | |I suspect the poster just doesn't know | |what s/he's doing. | | It's possible that we're not talking about the same version of the | software. In any case, I gave honest, experienced opinions about two | of the UNIX's in question. As both a user and a developer, I'm not | entirely sure I'd like to use Xenix anyway; it's environment is | sufficiently strange as to make development somewhat difficult. Take | my advice or leave it, but don't question my abilities. | | jim frost | madd@std.com I guess I didn't say that as clearly as I might have... I did not mean your incompetent, just unfamiliar with the system. In addition, I believe that you were using an older version of Xenix, although the 386 version hasn't been around that long. I may never have installed xenix in a tiny root partition, and it may indeed complain if you do so. If that's what you meant I think you may have described it somewhat strongly and I believed you meant some non-functional failure mode. As far as I can tell you can set the swap to any value, but if you want a value outside the suggested range you answer 'yes' when asked about block-by-block control over allocation. Then you can set the starting and ending blocks of each partition including swap, and diddle with the order of the partitions if you have a reason to do so. It's in the manual, but I doubt that I found it the first time, either. I won't get into non-standard. If BSD and naked ATT are standard, xenix isn't. Someone might say that there are more copies of xenix than any other flavor of unix (but since I can't find the source for that belief I can't press the claim). The ix/386 custom scripts are (or were) not totally bulletproof, and I managed to have an adventure using them. I have no doubt that I didn't know what I was doing ;-) -- 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
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (09/30/89)
In article <655@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > > I won't get into non-standard. If BSD and naked ATT are standard, >xenix isn't. Someone might say that there are more copies of xenix than >any other flavor of unix (but since I can't find the source for that >belief I can't press the claim). > Correct me if I wrong. As of its latest version, Xenix is SysV 3.2. With the exception of Sun's 386i (running SunOS which derived from BSD 4.2), Sys V is the de facto standard for Unix in the Intel world.