pgil@sphinx.uchicago.edu (paul gilna) (08/11/88)
This is one of those boring "please compress your n years of experience into a four line response" requests, so if you can't hack it, `just say n'. I Should like to hear ( directly please, less net clutter) from anyone who is currently using a SUN 386i as I am trying to assess the merits of buying one as a small LAN server. Bear in mind when deciding to reply that I shall probably pester you with inane queries but hey, what's a net for? Initially I am interested in how big an administrative chore running one would appear to a UNIX novice. cheers, paul gilna -- UUCP: ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!pgil, BITNET: pgil@sphinx.UChicago.edu Analogue: (312) 702-6971 VOICE: Hullo, um, is Paul there? Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
richard@neabbs.UUCP (RICHARD RONTELTAP) (08/13/88)
[ Info wanted about Sun 386i ] I hate to point out the obvious, but have your read the Byte review? In short DOS programs worked well, easy install, windowing environment, standard networking. Unfortunately, NO attention was payed to available UNIX applications (or should I say SunOs?) The main reason for this posting: I am too very curious about this machine, so please post your expereinces publicly. Richard
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (08/23/88)
In article <18509@neabbs.UUCP> richard@neabbs.UUCP (RICHARD RONTELTAP) writes: |I hate to point out the obvious, but have your read the Byte review? |In short DOS programs worked well, easy install, windowing |environment, standard networking. | |Unfortunately, NO attention was payed to available UNIX applications |(or should I say SunOs?) This may be a bit late in the reply chain but I read the review. The reviewer was obviosly an MS-DOS person with little or no UNIX knowledge. He gave a good review of the MS-DOS emulation under SunView but didn't seem to realize that the 386i is doing a lot more than just running the emulator. Maybe I'm being overcritical but I thought they could have done a better job. Along a similar line, check out John Dvorak's article in August PC magazine concerning UNIX on PC-style machines. I found the article interesting in that he got an awful lot of facts wrong about the history of UNIX and what it's meant for. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/24/88)
In article <24516@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >The >reviewer was obviosly an MS-DOS person with little or no UNIX >knowledge. This, alas, is a common problem. Many MS-DOS users seem to not realize how narrow their horizons are. I remember a review (in BYTE, I think) of a microcomputer implementation of UNIX in which the reviewer complained that when he gave a certain command it just hung up and didn't do anything. He failed to realize that a large number of UNIX command, when invoked without arguments, will read from standard input and thus quietly wait for you to type something. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi