sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/19/84)
I would like to hear some comments on ULTRIX, DEC's supported version
of 4.2BSD, especially from people who have used it themselves. Have you
been happy with its performance? How easy is it to reconfigure the
binary-only distribution? How are its software support plans? Does
DEC keep up with the bugs reported here and at Berkeley?
As you might guess, it is next to impossible to get any answers from
our salesman, who knows no more now about UNIX from DEC than he did
about UNIX from Bell Labs five years ago. Some software manager at
DEC called me on the urging of my salesman, but when I asked these
"hard questions" (?) he blanched (or the aural equivalent) and promised
to get back to me. I haven't heard anything yet, two weeks later.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAsml@wdl1.UUCP (sml ) (10/20/84)
I too have been unable to get information from DEC. I am not convinced that DEC really wants to sell me Ultrix. I am looking forwards to talking to the appropriate DEC managers at Decus. Steve Lazarus (415) 852-4203 Ford Aerospace ...fortune!wdl1!sml (USENET) MS X-20 sml@ford-wdl1 (ARPA) 3939 Fabian Way Palo Alto, CA 94303
mark@tove.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (10/20/84)
> I would like to hear some comments on ULTRIX, DEC's supported version > of 4.2BSD, especially from people who have used it themselves. Have you > been happy with its performance? How easy is it to reconfigure the > binary-only distribution? How are its software support plans? Does > DEC keep up with the bugs reported here and at Berkeley? > /Steve Dyer > {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer > sdyer@bbncca.ARPA We bought Ultrix for our 750's. Performance was identical to 4.2 (which isn't surprising...), except that the RA81 driver bugs of vanilla 4.2 were missing. Reconfiguring using the binary was straightforward-- part of DEC's rewriting was to make this work. So far we have seen no software support other than pretty manuals. The DEC field installation force let us install Ultrix ourselves since we knew more about it than them. We have gotten no software upgrades so far. I don't know how many if any of the many many bugs reported since 4.2 release were incorporated into our release of Ultrix (but the RA81 driver was fixed). Our source code for Ultrix hasn't arrived yet so we haven't had a chance to check. (Because of delays in getting the Ultrix source we switched to the BRL version of 4.2 after about a month, and are still running that.) -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark U.S.: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
steve@calmasd.UUCP (Stephen R. Cary) (10/22/84)
I have just received some information from my DEC salesman on ULTRIX-32.. I was singularly unimpressed. It seems that it is a basic 4.2BSD system with ALL of the non-DEC peripherals stripped out of it.. (eg. UUCP only supports DF02 and DF03's,etc.) Now I understand why DEC would have done that, but it is moderately annoying if you have foreign peripherals. One advantage that is mentioned is that the error messages are formatted to read like VMS error messages, so you can hand the console page to the FE and tell him to fix it.... I have had to explain the standard error messages to our field service folks... Which reminds me.. we have been getting a LOT of cp and ip cache parity faults. Any thoughts?? (780 running MORE/4.2bsd from Mt.Xinu) steve cary sdcsvax!calmasd!steve
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/25/84)
* It seems that [Ultrix-32] is a basic 4.2BSD system with
ALL of the non-DEC peripherals stripped out of it..
(eg. UUCP only supports DF02 and DF03's,etc.)
Now I understand why DEC would have done that,
but it is moderately annoying if you have foreign peripherals.
They didn't remove any code, they just are not going to get excited
if you tell them your Frammitz Widget breaks the Rofulo program, or
whatever. If UUCP fails on one of *their* dialers, then you can
complain to them. Pretty much standard stuff.
--
(This mind accidently left blank.)
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@marylandmark@tove.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (10/25/84)
> I have just received some information from my DEC > salesman on ULTRIX-32.. I was singularly unimpressed. > It seems that it is a basic 4.2BSD system with > ALL of the non-DEC peripherals stripped out of it.. > (eg. UUCP only supports DF02 and DF03's,etc.) > Now I understand why DEC would have done that, > but it is moderately annoying if you have foreign peripherals. > This was not true of the two Ultrix systems DEC shipped us. All of the original 4.2 drivers for all the non-DEC stuff were in there. There were disclaimers that DEC did not support them, but they were there. -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark U.S.: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
falcone@erlang.DEC (Joe Falcone, HLO2-3/N03, dtn 225-6059) (10/25/84)
CC: Being both on the inside of Digital and a user of both field test and production versions of ULTRIX, I'd like to set the record straight on a few points. The following are a few facts based on the ULTRIX distributions I've received and my personal opinions. 1. Non-DEC devices are not "stripped-out" of ULTRIX; the drivers are still supplied, but are not supported as part of the service contract. The manual pages for certain commands and devices have warnings that they are not supported by Digital. Nevertheless, you get both the code and the manual pages, just like in the 4.2BSD distribution. 2. I have been extremely impressed with the way the ULTRIX group tracks net.bugs and net.sources. When the customer release arrived I was pleasantly surprised to find many of the commands I had taken from net.sources and the Berkeley "extra stuff" tape already installed in working order on /usr/new, etc. This tracking saves me time that could be better spent (in my case especially, since I am supposed to be spending my time on things other than system support). 3. The distribution came up with no problems over 2 versions on 4 different VAX configurations on our site. This is the first time in my 8 year association with UN$X that I have seen a distribution come up without glitches. I personally did three of the installations and was surprised at how painless it was both starting from scratch or upgrading from 4.1C. A perspective on me: I don't enjoy playing system manager, so a supported 4.2 is the greatest thing since sliced bread for me. I've been a user of Digital machines and UN$X for many years now, and its nice to be able to have one's cake (UN$X) and eat it too (with SUPPORT). My bug fixing days are over. A relieved Joe Falcone Eastern Research Laboratory decwrl! Digital Equipment Corporation decvax!deccra!jrf Hudson, Massachusetts tardis!
norman@alice.UUCP () (10/26/84)
People interested in finding out more about ULTRIX are reminded that the Fall 1984 DECUS Symposium is coming up, and that many of the ULTRIX developers will be there and can be seen in sessions and cornered offline. The symposium runs from 10-14 December in Anaheim CA. For more information, write to DECUS U.S. Chapter, Symposia 249 Northboro Road, BPO2 Marlboro, MA 01752