raj@spl1.UUCP (12/05/87)
Reading all this agonizing about Microport, I just want to add a solid
positive vote for SCO and XENIX. Rather than talk about
features, I include below an exerpt from a "last" command:
.....
.....
many many many many many lines of utmp data
.....
.....
root tty02 Nov 9 11:43 - Nov 14 13:46 (5+ 3:00) [time change 56]
Ull1a tty6B Nov 9 11:38 - 12:25 (46)
raj tty01 Nov 9 11:35 - Nov 14 15:13 (5+ 4:34) [time change 56]
reboot system boot Nov 9 11:32 - present (25+ 7:18) [time change 56]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|||||| ||||||||
For those of you not familiar with this output, it says that our machine has
been up for the last 25 days, working hard, collecting dust!
Not only 25 days, but 25 days on a 5Mb 16MHz 386 CLONE (No Name), 8 ports (on
a very busy smart hostess card), XENIX-NET and ton of PD mail & system software
daemons. The ideal configuration for the "it's not my fault it don't work"
syndrome.
All this and a very very busy schedule as a principal news/mail forwarding
machine for quite a few downstream sites! (BTW: Lots of feed and mail
capacity for anyone interested in a hookup.)
Although I'm a little irritated at having to pay for a 386 upgrade (it
wasn't available when this system wen't on the air), performance like
this is *RARE* I'm a satisfied customer.
Bob Johnson
The Software Public Library
...ihnp4!laidbak!spl1jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (12/10/87)
In article <255@spl1.UUCP>, raj@spl1.UUCP (Robert Alan Johnson) writes: > Reading all this agonizing about Microport, I just want to add a solid > positive vote for SCO and XENIX. Rather than talk about > features, I include below an exerpt from a "last" command: > > reboot system boot Nov 9 11:32 - present (25+ 7:18) [time change 56] > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > |||||| |||||||| > > For those of you not familiar with this output, it says that our machine has > been up for the last 25 days, working hard, collecting dust! > > Bob Johnson > The Software Public Library > ...ihnp4!laidbak!spl1 Let me cast my vote. Once you get their attention, they do actually respond ;-). My system faults mega-pages a day, and executes kilo-commands, far from collecting dust (see why a page fault bug might urk me?). I now have 2.2.1j running, and other than shutting it down to play flight simulator, it works just fine. SCO still needs to work on the simple questions that reading a manual would cure (so why don't the technical support people at SCO read the manuals? - I have a great example of this, but then I've relayed it to SCO already) Now only time will tell if my box can run for 25+ days. Aside note, the longest I've kept a Unix System running on one boot was about 50 days. Anyone got any long stories? - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 ...!ihnp4!killer!rpp386!jfh Dallas, TX. 75243 "Don't Have an Oil Well? Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993
mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) (12/12/87)
> Now only time will tell if my box can run for 25+ days. Aside note, > the longest I've kept a Unix System running on one boot was about > 50 days. Anyone got any long stories? > > - John. Ok, I don't want to start a flood of long stories but aside from me once testing a bad memory card and forgetting to set up the bad block table on the hard disk (my faults, not unix). This Microport system has been running here for 6 months, 24 hours a day - and yes, I do useful work on the system. -Mike {amdahl, rutgers, ihnp4}!meccts!cimcor!mike
marlin@thelink.UUCP (Marlin Sheffield) (12/16/87)
In article <438@cimcor.UUCP>, mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) writes: > > Now only time will tell if my box can run for 25+ days. Aside note, > > > > - John. > > Ok, I don't want to start a flood of long stories but aside from me once > testing a bad memory card and forgetting to set up the bad block table on > the hard disk (my faults, not unix). This Microport system has been > running here for 6 months, 24 hours a day - and yes, I do useful > work on the system. > -Mike > {amdahl, rutgers, ihnp4}!meccts!cimcor!mike I've got to agree Mike. I have a public access UNIX site here and we have been running the news software for several months now and the only down time I've experienced has been the result of the local power company and not the OS. Our system has run 24 hours a day as has yours and I am happy with the results. I do understand how these sort of flames can happen when working with the tech staff at uport. I have been told tape drivers will be available for the archive tape unit in about 30 days every month for the last 7. I persist and call every 30 days to hear the same story. While the port is not yet perfect the product is a much more stable one today than the product I used a year ago. I want to encourage Microport to continue the effort in engineering until the product equals the marketing! -- Marlin Sheffield There are wonderful alternatives 52178 Fieldstone all the more wonderful because they've Granger, Indiana 46530 never yet been tried. -Rene Dubois ..iuvax!ndmath!thelink!marlin
greg@xios.XIOS.UUCP (Greg Franks) (12/21/87)
Please - lets cut the flaming down; this group is not alt.flame. Microport does indeed have many bugs, but let us not forget the state of XENIX four years ago... I think both Microsoft and Microport should be commended for getting UNIX to *even* run on such a kludge as the 80286. **Remember** never buy a car in its first model year :-) -- Greg Franks XIOS Systems Corporation, 1600 Carling Avenue, (613) 725-5411 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Z 8R8 utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!xios!greg "There's so much to sea in Nova Scotia"
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (12/27/87)
In article <441@xios.XIOS.UUCP> greg@sdn.UUCP (Greg Franks) writes: > >Please - lets cut the flaming down; this group is not alt.flame. >Microport does indeed have many bugs, but let us not forget the state of >XENIX four years ago... Let us not forget either the PRICE DIFFERENCE between Microport and anything else (Xenix, Venix, ISC, etc.) I've not seen even the XENIX runtime advertised for the price of the complete Microport system. Personally, I think those who expect the Microport product to be as bugfree and stable as the other packages are just being unrealistic. I'll grant anyone that Xenix is more bugfree, and so it should be at that price, BUT I COULD NOT AFFORD TO BUY IT. I'd rather have a buggy product I can afford to buy than a perfect product I can only admire in magazine ads and USENET discussions. Wolf Paul ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp
poetry@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (David Goodman) (12/29/87)
>Personally, I think those who expect the Microport product to be as bugfree >and stable as the other packages are just being unrealistic. > Could any of the early users of SUN OS tell me how good this operating system was in its infancy? I wasn't there when this happened. >... I'd rather have a buggy product I can >afford to buy than a perfect product I can only admire in magazine ads and >USENET discussions. > I'm a user of Microport V/AT and don't drive a red Ferrari but this is an utterly preposterous argument.
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (12/29/87)
In article <1987Dec28.174911.15313@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> poetry@gpu.utcs.UUCP (i.e.) writes: > >>Personally, I think those who expect the Microport product to be as bugfree >>and stable as the other packages are just being unrealistic. >> >>... I'd rather have a buggy product I can >>afford to buy than a perfect product I can only admire in magazine ads and >>USENET discussions. >> > >I'm a user of Microport V/AT and don't drive a red Ferrari but this >is an utterly preposterous argument. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why are folks on the net so quick to use derogatory language? And without explaining what they mean, too. Of course I'd rather have a bug-free product, if I can afford it, but XENIX is way overpriced, and therefore comparing Microport with it is unfair. I am sure that constructive criticism of the Microport packages by Microport users is more likely to bring about bugfixes than flames and comparisons by Xenix users who seem to have a need to justify to themselves and their bosses the fact that they spent three times as much money. Now, if anyone feels like calling me or my arguments by derogatory names, please have the courtesy to explain your reasoning instead of just making blanket statements. Wolf Paul ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/31/87)
In article <2605@killer.UUCP> wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) writes: >Of course I'd rather have a bug-free product, if I can afford it, but XENIX >is way overpriced, and therefore comparing Microport with it is unfair. I have to take exception to this. With Xenix, you get several MEGS of useful, carefully written software, dozens and dozens of man-years in the development, extensive manuals and the multitasking OS. Compare this with the majority of software products out there and how they're priced. The C compiler is the Microsoft C compiler. You lose Codeview but you get cross development for two environments. For $150 you get troff -- compare that with desktop publishing systems. The fact is that Xenix is more software for the $ than 99% of the stuff out there. If this makes it "way overpriced" then you are extravagant in your claims. Microport is also more software for the $ than 99.5% of the stuff out there, and more than Xenix. But instead, I would call it way underpriced, possible only because what Microport mostly does is licence the AT&T stuff. I fear that Microport doesn't charge enough to provide the support necessary for most customers. They will thrive only if this support (bug finding, device drivers etc.) comes from their users. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jjw@igloo.UUCP (John Welch) (01/01/88)
>Of course I'd rather have a bug-free product, if I can afford it, but XENIX >is way overpriced, and therefore comparing Microport with it is unfair. I don't know what Microport costs, but Programmers Connection has what appears to be the equivilant package, with text package and programmers package, for $994. It seems to be reasonably close, at least within an order of magnitude of what igloo's sysop paid for Microport. (igloo has had many serial port problems with Microport). What I see that igloo would get from running XENIX would be: 1. Reliable serial ports that work during UUCP. 2. The ability to use an RLL hard drive controller, which has been promised since last July, but still is not here. 3. The easy ability to install the SYSGEN tape drive that I have, to be able to back up quickly and easily. 4. No more double panics (which I have heard MAY now be fixed by Microport). Had Bill and I known how much trouble Microport would be, and how little the price difference was between it and SCO XENIX, I'm quite sure we would have somehow found the extra few hundred bucks to buy XENIX. As it stands, we may wind up doing just that anyway. Just how much IS a quality product worth, anyway? I still think XENIX is over-priced, but if you add up the phone bills, the hours spent and so on it seems to me that XENIX isn't all that expensive after all. (btw, I have no connection with any companies listed here. The opinions are all my own, but you can claim them if you really want to. -->jjw@igloo)
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (01/11/88)
In article <1987Dec28.174911.15313@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, poetry@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (David Goodman) writes: [in refernce to Microbug flamage:] > Could any of the early users of SUN OS tell me how good this operating system > was in its infancy? I wasn't there when this happened. It did have this problem with the serial ports.... -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947