jagrogan@vax1.tcd.ie (05/25/89)
Hi Can anyone out there recommend a good version of Unix for a PC? If anyone knows of one or can even give me a copy of one, I would be very grateful. John Grogan, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin.
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (05/26/89)
In article <43670@vax1.tcd.ie> jagrogan@vax1.tcd.ie writes: | Can anyone out there recommend a good version of Unix for a PC? |If anyone knows of one or can even give me a copy of one, I would be |very grateful. If you have a 386, I recommend Interactive Systems Corp's 386/ix. It's SysV with some BSD (no jobs, though). Works pretty well on a 4Mb system with 60Mb disk, pretty easy to install. If you want X windows, make it about an 8Mb system. If you don't have a 386, SCO XENIX is about the only choice. There's also MINIX, a teaching aid that is a complete reimplementation of Version 7 that runs on 8088, but that's not recommended for people who don't want to tinker. Source is included with MINIX. If you'd like more in-depth information about any of these, email me and I'll supply it. jim frost software tool & die madd@bu-it.bu.edu
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (05/29/89)
>In article <43670@vax1.tcd.ie> jagrogan@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >| Can anyone out there recommend a good version of Unix for a PC? >|If anyone knows of one or can even give me a copy of one, I would be >|very grateful. > We use and recommend SCO Xenix V/386. I've had problems with Interactive 386/ix, which are still unresolved after months of haggling with them. SCO has never had a serious problem that the maker was unable or unwilling to fix in my experience. SCO is a little more expensive, but you do get what you pay for. Xenix has a few things that the others leave out too, like "dbm" (a database primitive package). Both 386/ix and SCO will run each other's binaries at this point. --- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (06/01/89)
In article <[3491.2]comp.ibmpc;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: |Both 386/ix and SCO will run each other's binaries at this point. That depends on what you mean by "run". While I personally haven't tried running 386/ix binaries on XENIX, we found that XENIX binaries that altered character processing (eg CBREAK) didn't work correctly under 386/ix (the simplest example is the XENIX binary for urogue). jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (06/02/89)
>Response 3 of 3 (3491) by madd at bu-cs.BU.EDU on Thu 01 Jun 89 11:42 >[Jim Frost] > >In article <[3491.2]comp.ibmpc;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl >Denninger) writes: > >|Both 386/ix and SCO will run each other's binaries at this point. > >That depends on what you mean by "run". While I personally haven't >tried running 386/ix binaries on XENIX, we found that XENIX binaries >that altered character processing (eg CBREAK) didn't work correctly >under 386/ix (the simplest example is the XENIX binary for urogue). Uh, you do realize that the Xenix rogue game (in the /usr/games directory) is an 8086 (that's right, 8086) binary, do you not? COSMOS and AKCS Xenix binaries, both of which alter character processing, run correctly on 386/ix V2.0.1. These are 80386 binaries; I have not yet tried '286 code. COSMOS contains calls to system routines that don't exist on 386/ix -- yet it works -- unchanged! (specific example -- "nap()") In fact, one of these sites is running AKCS in production mode (ie: users on without any knowledge of what they're doing), and it works fine. AKCS's internal full-screen editor is about as "wierd on the terminal modes" as you can get -- it's a full screen curses implementation, and goes into and out of CBREAK and RAW modes many during the posting of a message (this is what I am posting the response you are reading now from). Again, these are all '386 programs. I have also successfully run programs that use shared libs from the 386/ix system (as well as Microport's 386 implementation) on Xenix 2.3, and they also worked without complaint or problem. I'll try a '286 and 8086 program and see what it does; perhaps there is a problem there. Then again, the ability to run these AT ALL is far beyond anything 386/ix can pretend to do in COFF format.... --- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
zs04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Zachary T. Smith) (06/25/89)
Although most everybody is proclaiming SCO's version of system V Unix to be the standard for 386 PCs, you may want to consider something less expensive, such as ENIX (Everex Unix V.3.2, based on AT&T's V.3.2 for the 386) or Microport system V for the 386. A two-user ENIX system with C compiler (and awk and mail and everything) and X Window Ver 11R3 (EGA/VGA) costs only $600. -- A far cry from the approx $1500 you'd have to shell out for what people are calling the undis- puted standard. (Choke, cough, wheeze.) A think the equivalent uPort system is around $1000, but that's just a guess. Considering that both SCO Unix and ENIX V.3.2 are designed to 'be' the same AT&T V.3.2, and that, in fact, virtually all flavors on 386 Unix or Xenix are binary compatible (they all follow the same standards), I'm pretty sure I won't be coughing up any blood for SCO. ENIX is VP/ix-ready (or actually an enhanced version of it), amoung other things. Besides ENIX you may want to look at Microport's System V implementation. I haven't actually got the main-office phone #'s for either on hand, but I do have the number for ENIX tech support: (213) 598-2794. Please note I have zero affiliation with either ENIX or Microport, I'm just offering advice. -Zach Smith (zs04@andrew.cmu.edu)
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (06/26/89)
In an earlier article zs04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Zachary T. Smith) writes: > >Although most everybody is proclaiming SCO's version >of system V Unix to be the standard for 386 PCs, you may >want to consider something less expensive, such as >ENIX (Everex Unix V.3.2, based on AT&T's V.3.2 for the >386)... > >A two-user ENIX system with C compiler (and awk and >mail and everything) and X Window Ver 11R3 (EGA/VGA) >costs only $600. -- A far cry from the approx $1500 you'd >have to shell out for what people are calling the undis- >puted standard. (Choke, cough, wheeze.) > (By the way - ENIX is now Officially "ESIX." I always thought "EVERIX" would be a great name...) You also get TCP/IP with Ethernet drivers for WD8003E, a 3Com board (3C501? 3C503? - I forget...), and an Everex Ethernet card. Includes telnet, telnetd, ftp and ftpd. (However I'm having discussions w/ ESIX about a problem with the ftp that I expect will be cleared up shortly.) You also get a 2 kbyte Files system and a XENIX file system-compatibility package. (I've not used these, however.) > >ENIX is VP/ix-ready (or actually an enhanced version >of it), amoung other things. Uh, that's AT&T's SIMULTASK.. I understand that Locus's DOS/Merge _MIGHT_ be in the works, too, but don't hold either ESIX or me to that as a "done deal." > >Please note I have zero affiliation with either ENIX >or Microport, I'm just offering advice. Me, too. kEITHe
barton@holston.UUCP (barton) (06/27/89)
In article <sYdA45y00WBn01UUYc@andrew.cmu.edu>, zs04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Zachary T. Smith) writes: > > Although most everybody is proclaiming SCO's version > of system V Unix to be the standard for 386 PCs, you may > want to consider something less expensive, such as > ENIX (Everex Unix V.3.2, based on AT&T's V.3.2 for the > 386) or Microport system V for the 386. > Don't expect too much from Microport, they just filed for Chapter 11 protection. -- Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {texbell,uunet}!warble!holston!barton PO Box 1781 | DOMAIN: barton@holston Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ---------------------------------------- 318-439-5984 | +++++ "Hal, open the pod bay doors" --- Dave
uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) (06/29/89)
From article <5442@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, by keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson): >>ENIX is VP/ix-ready (or actually an enhanced version >>of it), amoung other things. > > Uh, that's AT&T's SIMULTASK.. I understand that Locus's DOS/Merge > _MIGHT_ be in the works, too, but don't hold either ESIX or me to > that as a "done deal." > It can run VP/ix (v.1.0.1 from ix/386 v.1.0.6 was tested) - but to get VP/ix from Interactive is not that cheap ! (though AT&T SimulTask is more expensive (:-( Uri.