bent@lccinc.UUCP (Ben Taylor) (10/24/90)
We have been using the B news distribution from SCO and have found it to be just too slow. We get the better part of a full feed, and the machine spends most of its day and night unbatching news. The machine is a Compaq 386/33 with a 387, 14 Megs and a 650 Mb disk. This is not a slow machine! After reading this news group for a couple of weeks and looking over the C news documentation, I have it built. What I want to know is: 1) is there anyone who has gone from B news to C news who might be able to shed some light on any problems there may be in doing this change (especially on Xenix) 2) I had some problems with the shell scripts. It would appear that Xenix does not recognize the #! /bin/sh construct. Can any one confirm this. 3) We will be converting to Interactive Unix 2.2 in a couple of months. Anyone have any experience moving the news from one OS to another. Thanks. Ben Taylor "What I say, MINE MINE, ALL MINE" System Administrator uunet!lccinc!bent LCC, Incorporated. Washington, DC (202) 828-5550, x642
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (10/25/90)
In article <280@lccinc.UUCP> bent@lccinc.UUCP (Ben Taylor) writes: > We have been using the B news distribution from SCO and have found it > to be just too slow. Not surprising -- it's a 286 large model programme set -- the slowest kind of binary to execute on your machine. Nearly every instruction reloads the MMU so......<cough, splutter> > After reading this news group for a couple of weeks and > looking over the C news documentation, I have it built. Be sure to run all the regression tests. Check the makefiles in each source subdirectory for instructions on how to do so. This simple step would have saved lots of people who didn't realise that dbz needed to compiled without -O if you've got Microsoft's compiler (I use GCC so I don't have that problem) BTW Henry: why does the notebook say that GCC needs -traditional ? I don't seem to need it. > 2) I had some problems with the shell scripts. It would appear that > Xenix does not recognize the #! /bin/sh construct. Can any one > confirm this. I confirm this. > 3) We will be converting to Interactive Unix 2.2 in a couple of months. > Anyone have any experience moving the news from one OS to another. Theoretically, you should be able to just copy your Xenix binaries over. I did that when I moved news to a machine running SCO Unix 3.2 which is drived from the same base OS as ISC 2.2 (or so they say :-) -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct25.071233.4401@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >BTW Henry: why does the notebook say that GCC needs -traditional ? >I don't seem to need it. It is possible that the bits of work we've been doing on ANSI C compatibility have removed the need for this, but I wouldn't be prepared to swear to that without trying it. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) (10/28/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Date: 25 Oct 90 16:44:44 GMT In article <1990Oct25.071233.4401@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >BTW Henry: why does the notebook say that GCC needs -traditional ? It is possible that the bits of work we've been doing on ANSI C compatibility have removed the need for this, but I wouldn't be prepared to swear to that without trying it. I suspect it depends on your gcc installation. At MIT Project Athena, gcc's stdio.h file has function prototypes which conflict with libstdio/rdwr.c, causing compilation to fail unless -traditional is used. AMBAR ambar@ora.com uunet!ora!ambar