gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/30/87)
In article <1903@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >well, I'm posting this from an AT&T 3b2 right now. Believe me, compared to >what kind of stuff is available on a Sun, Sys V.2.2, at least, is so >plain-vanilla that it's (almost?) painfull. I wouldn't attempt to use Sys V >without getting either csh or ksh, and a whole bunch of baubles out of the >net.archives (e.g. the "less" pager, "jove", & sundry other utilities). I think the claim was not that a bare 3B2 was more useful than a Sun workstation, but that a 3B2 with an attached 630 was comparable to one. Definitely there is a difference in architectural philosophy and many details, but I for example have had access to both and I slightly prefer the 630/3B2 combo to a Sun-3 for the type of work I typically do (mostly software development). SVR2V2 is not the current 3B2 OS release, by the way; SVR3.1 is, and it's significantly better than SVR2V2 in a number of ways. By the way, on a 630/3B2 (actually one 3B2 can support multiple independent 630s), the editor of choice would be "sam", available from the AT&T UNIX System ToolChest (actually they may just have a 5620 version at present, but I suspect Dave Prosser will make available his updated version for the 630, or one could probably adapt it without too much work since the 630's programming environment is highly source- compatible with the 5620's). If "sam" is unavailable, one would use "jim"; either is quite a bit better than "jove", "vi", and other similar editors for most purposes. I would also use "pg" (supplied with the OS) for pagination, or better yet use the scrolling/mouse editing features of the 630 instead. The main drawback to the layers protocol, RFS, and so forth is not technical, since in some ways they are superior to competitive alternatives, but rather the lateness of their appearance on the scene, abetted by what I am told is still inadequate knowledge about these developments on the part of some of the AT&T sales staff. Of course, by now most of you have probably heard that some time in the future, SunOS and AT&T's System V are supposed to be totally in sync, with a shared common Application Binary Interface based on the SPARC architecture. However, it's still mostly a plan rather than a reality. It promises to be pretty nice eventually, if all goes well; imagine being able to buy a single shrink-wrapped application at the local store that would work properly on both your home computer and on the biggest system at work. By the way, WHY are all these architectural discussions taking place in this newsgroup??
elg@killer.UUCP (10/31/87)
in article <6615@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) says: > By the way, WHY are all these architectural discussions taking place > in this newsgroup?? In the beginning, someone asked how they could get ksh. Someone else replied "pay xyz dollars to AT&T and they'll give you the source to it" (where xyz was some huge amount totally out of reach to ordinary citizens). Someone else replied "No, you can buy the binaries for the 3b2 and from third parties". To which I said "Fine if you have a 3b2 or a Vax, the rest of us are just out of luck." And then some obnoxio from AT&T posted "Well buy a 3b2 then! You need one anyhow!" To which I replied that I needed a 3b2 like I needed a hole in my head, and that for the money, I could probably buy a faster machine better suited for my uses (let's face it, I don't have any need for a multiuser widget with glass TTY interface). And then someone brought Sun into it, someone else counterattacked, and here we are. Tracing the history of USENET postings is fun, no? > In article <1903@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >>well, I'm posting this from an AT&T 3b2 right now. Believe me, compared to >>what kind of stuff is available on a Sun, Sys V.2.2, at least, is so >>plain-vanilla that it's (almost?) painfull. I wouldn't attempt to use Sys V >>without getting either csh or ksh, and a whole bunch of baubles out of the >>net.archives (e.g. the "less" pager, "jove", & sundry other utilities). > > compatible with the 5620's). If "sam" is unavailable, one would use > "jim"; either is quite a bit better than "jove", "vi", and other > similar editors for most purposes. I would also use "pg" (supplied > with the OS) for pagination, or better yet use the scrolling/mouse > editing features of the 630 instead. "pg" is sorry compared to "less". "less" scrolls both forward and backward, and you don't have to always be hitting return (the space bar is under my thumb, fer cryin' out loud, why should I have to reach WAYYY over with my little finger to hit the RETURN key?). I don't know if you've used "jove", but I find it a nice compromise between "vi" (which is a bit simplistic), and full-blown GNU Emacs (which is overkill a lot of the time). I wasn't the person comparing Suns to 3b2s (which is sort of like comparing apples to oranges, as someone else said), but I do think that for the money, for a personal single-user machine, a 3b2 is not the way to go (and I'm not so sure about Sun, either...). I wouldn't know what Sam or Jim are, since I don't happenn to have a $3,000 terminal hanging around, but while their user interface might be prettier, I doubt they could hold their own against GNU Emacs feature-wise. Let's face it, gmacs didn't get to be 1 megabyte of object code fer nuttin'. > The main drawback to the layers protocol, RFS, and so forth is not > technical, since in some ways they are superior to competitive > alternatives, but rather the lateness of their appearance on the > scene From what I've heard of RFS, it needs a bit more work before being useful for the heterogenous networks where NFS is now chugging away. However, considering that NFS is proprietary to Sun, I can see where AT&T needs to develop their own network file system product. But since job control, basic networking etc. is pretty much public domain (since it was done at UCB), I've always wondered why AT&T never adopted any such innovations. Turns out there was a reason. AT&T was busy re-inventing them. Of course. And it took them ONLY 5 years longer than UCB. I don't know about you, but if I saw any other company that took 5 years to bring their product up to the same level as some kludge/hack job done by students at a public unversity, I'd be watching that company go belly-up at this very moment. And some people wonder why Unix's performance in the business market has been so uninspirational... heck, with that track record, is it any wonder why business has been reluctant to buy Unix? -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again....
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (11/02/87)
In article <1957@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >"pg" is sorry compared to "less". "less" scrolls both forward and backward, >and you don't have to always be hitting return (the space bar is under my >thumb, fer cryin' out loud, why should I have to reach WAYYY over with my >little finger to hit the RETURN key?). I don't know where you got your information, but it's wrong. "pg -n" scrolls a page when either the newline or space key is pressed. "pg" scrolls backward as well as forward (and can do pattern searches), and has several other capabilities. "pg" can have some of its default behavior altered by setting configuration options (such as "-n") on the command line; you can build these options into a shell function (an "alias") if you prefer them. (Actually I usually use my own fast non-scrolling pager!) >I don't know if you've used "jove", but >I find it a nice compromise between "vi" (which is a bit simplistic), and >full-blown GNU Emacs (which is overkill a lot of the time). Yes, I use JOVE when I happen to not be using a DMD, or if I'm using a DMD and need just a quick edit, with the DMD "sam" interface not downloaded at the time. Sometimes under these circumstances I'll use "sam -d" (or even "ed") instead, depending on how much programmed editing I'll require. >I wouldn't know what Sam or Jim are, since I don't >happenn to have a $3,000 terminal hanging around, but while their user >interface might be prettier, I doubt they could hold their own against GNU >Emacs feature-wise. Let's face it, gmacs didn't get to be 1 megabyte of object >code fer nuttin'. $2200 for a 630 in small quantities, last I heard. That's considerably cheaper than a Sun. By the time one amortizes the cost of a 3B2 over the 630s it supports, the cost is similar to Suns, with no disk in your work area and files inherently sharable on a single host processor. Each 630 has a CPU comparable to a Sun's, so if you're exploiting it by interactive user interface code the speed is usually similar to Suns. As pointed out before, the system architectures for these two approaches are rather dissimilar, but the functionality is roughly comparable. You can probably find more commercial software packages for Suns than for 630/3B2s, and that may decide the issue.. >From what I've heard of RFS, it needs a bit more work before being useful for >the heterogenous networks where NFS is now chugging away. As of SVR3.1, RFS is in pretty good shape and is getting better. For heterogeneous processors, AT&T plans to use Sun's XDR, the same as is used by NFS. (I don't know if this is already in SVR3.1.) The main functional difference, apart from RFS supporting full UNIX file semantics, lies in the file protection mapping used by the two systems. AT&T's approach allows very flexible inter-system user ID mapping, while Sun's "yellow pages" sucks so badly that we refused to use it when we installed our first NFS support at BRL (we even found it preferable to impose a global UID space across all systems!). >But since job control, basic networking >etc. is pretty much public domain (since it was done at UCB), I've always >wondered why AT&T never adopted any such innovations. Turns out there was a >reason. AT&T was busy re-inventing them. Of course. And it took them ONLY 5 >years longer than UCB. I doubt that the Regents of the University of California would agree that the work done at UCB is in the public domain. The main reason (other than quality assurance) that such facilities have shown up later in AT&T UNIX System V than in 4BSD is that the AT&T developers sought the best long-term solutions, which have generally not been the same as the FIRST solutions found in 4BSD. For example, sockets act differently than other UNIX file objects and do not offer the technical advantages of streams. One has been able to obtain third-party socket implementations for UNIX System V, but AT&T waited until they had a superior networking technical base (STREAMS) before releasing it as part of their product. The System V approach is a better long-term solution; however, I have to agree that it was needed quite some time before it finally appeared. The head start that NFS has obtained may prevent RFS from ever displacing it; we'll have to wait and see. Another major factor affecting UNIX System V has been AT&T's desire to maintain object compatibility across releases. Although the Berkeley developers have paid some attention to this also, they haven't been nearly so concerned about it as AT&T. This certainly constrains the effects allowed when innovations are added to the product. I have nothing against Suns; we have some and plan to get lots more. However, AT&T's UNIX developers have not been sleeping either (at least not recently). If all goes approximately as planned, the merged SunOS/System V product line should be a real winner in a few years.
rjd@tiger.UUCP.UUCP (11/02/87)
> ...... Someone else > replied "No, you can buy the binaries for the 3b2 and from third parties". To > which I said "Fine if you have a 3b2 or a Vax, the rest of us are just out of > luck." And then some obnoxio from AT&T posted "Well buy a 3b2 then! You need > one anyhow!" To which I replied that I needed a 3b2 like I needed a hole in my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > head, and that for the money, I could probably buy a faster machine better ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > suited for my uses (let's face it, I don't have any need for a multiuser ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > widget with glass TTY interface). ......... And I quote: > Hate to burst your bubble, but if I had the $10,000 for a 3b2, there is a > whole host of other machines in that price range which provide more bang for > the buck, with a better version of Unix, too (Pet Peeve #123123). Ain't no way > that the poor old WE CPU in the 3b2 is gonna keep up with no 16mhz > 68020... > Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Sounds like you started it with these attacks on a product you are obviously unfamiliar with. I agree on one point: for personal use a 3B2 is overkill, I would rather buy a PC for home use. "some obnoxio from AT&T"????? Gee thanks, I was unaware that a plug for an AT&T product (a one line plug at that) made me an "obnoxio from AT&T".... Randy
netnews@erc3bb.UUCP (Avi Feldblum) (11/03/87)
In article <1957@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP writes: >"pg" is sorry compared to "less". "less" scrolls both forward and backward, >and you don't have to always be hitting return>-- > Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 > {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 While I happen to prefer less to pg, pg (at least SVR2 and later) will page both forward and backward, and the -n option of pg will scroll on the space bar rather than the CR. There are differences between the two (popping into your editor, setting tag marks), but not what you have mentioned. Avi Feldblum ayf@pruxe.att.com
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (11/05/87)
As quoted from <1957@killer.UUCP> by elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green): +--------------- | "pg" is sorry compared to "less". "less" scrolls both forward and backward, | and you don't have to always be hitting return (the space bar is under my | thumb, fer cryin' out loud, why should I have to reach WAYYY over with my | little finger to hit the RETURN key?). I don't know if you've used "jove", but +--------------- pg -- You lose. It scrolls backwards, it scrolls pipes in both directions (at least, it seemed to; I get the impression it buffers pipe data into a file and seeks on that). And try from ksh "alias pg='pg -n -s'"; this results in both a reverse-video prompt and the ability to hit space instead of return. I admit having -s be the default would be nicer, though... but less tries a bit too hard to look like vi (those damned ~'s, etc.). I know you can use all sorts of options to make less behave in a different manner, but I was sick of it after a week. (Yes, I know about $LESS.) Hmmm.... this is turning into Pager-and-Editor Wars, Round 1,779,561. Let's just drop the issue, hmmm? (Naw... this is the Usenet! ;-) -- Brandon S. Allbery necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu {harvard!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (11/06/87)
> >"pg" is sorry compared to "less". > > Pg is comparable to less. Both let you go to an arbitrary point in a file. > Both let you page backwards (but less will use scroll-backwards, if your > terminal has it; pg doesn't). Pg with the -n option will use cbreak mode, > like less, so you don't have to hit RETURN after every command. I usually use vi as a pager. It usually serves my needs quite well, though it may not be elegant.... (it will scroll up/down and everything that has so far been mentioned). You could use view, the link to vi that does not allow writes. Randy
wrp@krebs.acc.virginia.edu (Wm Pearson) (11/07/87)
In article <147000008@tiger.UUCP> rjd@tiger.UUCP writes: >I agree on one point: for personal use a 3B2 is overkill, I >would rather buy a PC for home use. I don't know about these $35,000 3b/600's, but I consider the 3b2/310 (a little closer to $10,000) underkill for personal use, even with a 70 Mbyte hard disk add-on. The thing to remember when evalating claims for 3b machines is that you have to divide the capacity in number of users by 10 to get a figure that compares with an IBM-PC, Xenix-AT, VAX, or whatever. So if ATT has a $35,000 machine that is supposed to support 30 users, it's really a 3 user machine, and you would still be better off with a small sun (and you get job control). Bill Pearson wrp@virginia A 3b2/310 was worth $15,000 when a VAX11/780 was worth $300,000.
paddock@48color.UUCP (Steve Paddock) (11/12/87)
In article <269@krebs.acc.virginia.edu> wrp@krebs.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: +In article <147000008@tiger.UUCP> rjd@tiger.UUCP writes: +>I agree on one point: for personal use a 3B2 is overkill, I +>would rather buy a PC for home use. + +I don't know about these $35,000 3b/600's, but I consider the 3b2/310 +(a little closer to $10,000) underkill for personal use, even with a +70 Mbyte hard disk add-on. Sorry, I have tested both, and a properly tuned 2mb 310 will leave an AT class machine in the dust from one to ten users. (At which point the AT is in reboot-me mode anyhow) + The thing to remember when evalating claims for 3b machines is that +you have to divide the capacity in number of +users by 10 to get a figure that compares with an IBM-PC, Xenix-AT, VAX, +or whatever. So if ATT has a $35,000 machine that is supposed to support +30 users, it's really a 3 user machine, and you would still be better off +with a small sun (and you get job control). Nonsense. Steve. -- Steve Paddock (ut-ngp!auscso!mybest!paddock) 512-477-9736 Best Printing Co, Austin, Texas 78767