devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) (03/12/88)
Subject: Re: Help us defend against VMS! In article <867@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > Now, we all know that Ultrix isn't really UNIX, and that it probably > should be thrown out the window, but [...] Ok, so *what* is Unix. Is it something that comes out of UC-Berkeley? Out of Mt. Xinu? Is it Version 7? System III? Reimplementations like Venix, or Minix or RMS's current effort? Or is just what AT&T packages as System V? In that case, is it Release 1, 2, 3, or 4? And release for which machine -- 3b5s? 3b20s? What about research versions? An old line is that "Unix is whatever is currently running on Dennis Ritchie's machine". Or is your working definition based upon a test like SVVS? If so, what do you call all the past versions that never passed SVVS? How about making the test something that is not controlled by one of the vendors. That is what Posix is for! And when Posix is ready, DEC has said Ultrix will be compliant. Just because you "all know" something does not make it true. Something to consider is that Berkeley runs Ultrix on its department machines because of the support available. Bob Devine
david@sun.uucp (David DiGiacomo) (03/12/88)
In article <8803112014.AA05869@decwrl.dec.com> devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) writes: > Just because you "all know" something does not make it true. >Something to consider is that Berkeley runs Ultrix on its >department machines because of the support available. Ha ha ha. As has been explained in another newsgroup, Berkeley runs Ultrix on those machines because it can't work out the 4.3 licensing with AT&T.
mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) (03/13/88)
In article <8803112014.AA05869@decwrl.dec.com> devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) writes: >Subject: Re: Help us defend against VMS! > >In article <867@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@turing.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > >> Now, we all know that Ultrix isn't really UNIX, and that it probably >> should be thrown out the window, but [...] > > Ok, so *what* is Unix. Is it something that comes out of >UC-Berkeley? Out of Mt. Xinu? Is it Version 7? System III? [Lots of various Unix-like operating systems deleted] UNIX is that which legally bears the trademark "UNIX". See? That is what trademarks are for. This means Versions 1-n, System III, System V, BSD, and Mt. Xinu (which is distributed straight from BSD). Trademarks are useful. They let the consumer know what she is getting. Ultrix is enhanced 4.2BSD UNIX. It is lacking in almost all of the additions Berkeley made for 4.3BSD. The additions DEC has made are almost none of them by DEC, they are by other vendors (SUN, AT&T). > Just because you "all know" something does not make it true. >Something to consider is that Berkeley runs Ultrix on its >department machines because of the support available. Just because you "know" why UCB runs Ultrix on dept. machines doesn't make it true. They do it because of DEC demanding that they buy an OS with the machine. They don't want to buy a second license and put BSD on. Now, if DEC let them by machines without an OS.... Michael I. Bushnell mike@turing.unm.edu {ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!turing!mike HASA -- "A" division
devine@cookie.dec.com (Bob Devine) (03/15/88)
I wrote that "Berkeley runs Ultrix on its department machines because of the support available." Sorry, that is wrong. UCB has Ultrix on those machines, instead one of its releases such as 4.2 or 4.3, because they are VAX 8800's and the CSRG didn't want to bother with the mods needed for those boxes. Why UCB bought the machines instead of ones that did easily run 4.3 came from a decision that was apparently more political than technical. The reason put forward by sun!david, that there was a licensing problem from AT&T for those machines, seems unlikely. Bob Devine
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (03/16/88)
In article <883@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@turing.UNM.EDU.UUCP (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >... > Trademarks are useful. They let the consumer know what she is getting. > Ultrix is enhanced 4.2BSD UNIX. It is lacking in almost all of the > additions Berkeley made for 4.3BSD. The additions DEC has made are > almost none of them by DEC, they are by other vendors (SUN, AT&T). Look, about the time 4.3 BSD comes with DECnet, LAT, disk based partition tables and now NFS, I'll have it running here a week later. I realize most of these are excuses for talking to vaxen running that other operating system, but if some of the users here prefer to use VMS, I'm not going to take away their toys and it's to my advantage to interoperate with as much flexability as possible. While DEC may not be cutting any new ground with Ultrix, it's not a bad job overall, and they haven't really done any worse brutalities to BSD than most of the other vendors who have tried to "add something" to Unix to meet their perceived needs. Sun is innocent, maybe? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|ihnp4|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (03/18/88)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) wrote: >about the time 4.3 BSD comes with DECnet, LAT, disk based partition >tables and now NFS, I'll have it running here a week later. Interesting that some sites try to get their UNIX machines to look like VMS boxes (at least as far as functionality goes), while others are trying to get their VMS machines to look like UNIX boxes... Are on-disk partition tables that important? How often do you change your partitions? Administration here is threatening to trade my 750 (4.3) for an 8000-class machine. I hope I can convince them to make it an 8200 so I can run the UMD mods to 4.3...or maybe a microvax! That's the ticket... ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page "Nicaragua" is Spanish for "Vietnam."
pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) (03/19/88)
In article <5533@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Are on-disk partition tables that important? How often do you >change your partitions? On-disk partition tables are VERY important for us, since we have a whole lot of third-party MSCP disks with different sizes. Without being able to change the partition tables, we'd have to have a different version of the kernel (with the partition tables hacked up in uda.c the right way) for each hardware configuration. And if you have a machine with disks from any two different vendors at the same time, well, you lose, since the device driver can only store one partition table at a time in the device driver for each different kind of disk. (Yes, I know that the *real* bug is that our Maxtor disks and our Fujitsu disks both identify themselves as RA80's...) And, of course, if you're a binary-only site, you lose again, since you couldn't fix it even if you knew how. --Pat.
shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (03/19/88)
In article <5533@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) wrote: >>about the time 4.3 BSD comes with DECnet, LAT, disk based partition >>tables and now NFS, I'll have it running here a week later. George, One can get 4.3 BSD with NFS I think Mt. Xinu does that already. About LAT's there are other solutions too. Is DECNET such a big deal right now? You can consider other protocols and be eminently compatible with lots of systems around. >Interesting that some sites try to get their UNIX machines to look >like VMS boxes (at least as far as functionality goes), while others >are trying to get their VMS machines to look like UNIX boxes... Touche, Bob! >Administration here is threatening to trade my 750 (4.3) for an >8000-class machine. I hope I can convince them to make it an 8200 so ^^^^ Well if the admin types don't know any better, why not plug for an 8600 or 8650 ? It should satisfy their way of looking at things. Now that's the ticket :-) -- sharan "alf" kalwani. 110 east warren detroit mi 48201. (313) 833-0710 x411 USENET: ...!{ihnp4!mibte, uunet!umix, philabs!fmsrl7, ucbvax!mtxinu}!mcf!shan INTERNET: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu BITNET: mcf!shan@psuvax1.BITNET DEC's EASYNET: DECWRL::"umix.cc.umich.edu!mcf!shan"
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (03/21/88)
In article <5533@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Administration here is threatening to trade my 750 (4.3) for an >8000-class machine. I hope I can convince them to make it an 8200 so >I can run the UMD mods to 4.3...or maybe a microvax! That's the ticket... Get them to spring for an 8650 :-) More seriously, an 8250 is probably not worth what they would pay for it. The performance is about equal to that of a `massbussless' 11/785, although the reliability is better and the service contract correspondingly cheaper. But it is so easy to get better performance than a 785 gives. . . . In fact, only the new 3000-series Vaxen seem to have anywhere near a reasonable price/performance. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) (03/21/88)
From: Patrick Barron <pdb@sei.cmu.EDU> In article <5533@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Are on-disk partition tables that important? How often do you >change your partitions? And, of course, if you're a binary-only site, you lose again, since you couldn't fix it even if you knew how. It's rather trivial to adb the kernel partition tables if you know what they look like. And the structure is rather simple. --Pat. (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> National Bureau of Standards Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688 All this time I've been VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!