mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/04/87)
I am not interested in uPort information, as I do not make the silly
mistake of operating on INTEL based pseudo-computers. I have noted that
>>50% of the articles on this newsgroup are uPort related. I think it's
wonderful that someone like uPort is creating an operating system with some
usefulness for your pseudo-computers, but *I DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT*!
I therefore formally propose the formation of comp.unix.uPort, to provide
a forum for the obviously significant audience interested in that topic.
Given the traffic patterns in comp.unix.xenix for the past few months, I
see no reason to take a vote. It seems to me that the group ought simply
to be formed. In fact, if someone else HASN'T formed it by Sept. 8, I will
take the responsibility for so doing.
(seriously, I should apologize for my processor bigottry, and I do (sort
of). But the uPort people *DO* need their own forum, now.)
--
Tom Keller
VOICE : + 1 707 575 9493
UUCP : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (09/09/87)
In article <1121@gilsys.UUCP>, mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > > I am not interested in uPort information, as I do not make the silly > mistake of operating on INTEL based pseudo-computers. I have noted that > >>50% of the articles on this newsgroup are uPort related. I think it's > wonderful that someone like uPort is creating an operating system with some > usefulness for your pseudo-computers, but *I DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT*! > > > Tom Keller I agree with Tom on the need for a Microport group. However, 80286 now run more Xenix than any other processor. Your religious rantings should seriously be taken elsewhere. Microport is today where Microsoft and ATT will merge SV and XenixV. However, Microsoft isn't releasing the merge product until sometime in 1989!! (Whereas we Microport developers will have had 3 years of COFF and sdb and *real* systemV!) Get off the processor wars. Its offensive and unnecessary. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. ...!{seismo}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (09/09/87)
In article <1121@gilsys.UUCP> mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: | | I am not interested in uPort information, as I do not make the silly |mistake of operating on INTEL based pseudo-computers. Since most of the Xenix in the world is now run on Intel based computers, why don't you either (a) shut up, or (b) form a group called unix.xenix.obsolete68k? | I have noted that |>>50% of the articles on this newsgroup are uPort related. I think it's |wonderful that someone like uPort is creating an operating system with some |usefulness for your pseudo-computers, but *I DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT*! Do us all a favor and press the "U" key, and you won't have to. | I therefore formally propose the formation of comp.unix.uPort, to provide |a forum for the obviously significant audience interested in that topic. |Given the traffic patterns in comp.unix.xenix for the past few months, I |see no reason to take a vote. It seems to me that the group ought simply |to be formed. In fact, if someone else HASN'T formed it by Sept. 8, I will |take the responsibility for so doing. Just what we need, another news group. The problem is not with the *content* of this group, but the *name*. It is really concerned with running UNIX on microcomputers, and I would just as soon not have to read a Xenix68k, Xenix286, Xenix386, uport286, and uport386 group to keep up with the developments in the "small UNIX" area. The MicroPort information is valuable for comparison, and since too many things would get cross posted. | | (seriously, I should apologize for my processor bigottry, and I do (sort | of). But the uPort people *DO* need their own forum, now.) You certainly should. Xenix on the 68k is a minority now, and getting more so every day. It doesn't matter if you like (or I like it) or if it's a "good thing," that's the way it is... UNIX for the masses on cheap boxes. The next thing you will want to do is split off the 386 users, because we don't have a segmented address space problem. Renaming this group might (or might not) be a good idea, but if there is a cadre of elitist users who are not interested in how the low budget crowd does things, let *them* form a new group. |-- |Tom Keller |VOICE : + 1 707 575 9493 |UUCP : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020 Sorry to go off like this, but to have someone decide without a vote that a new newsgroup is needed, and who shall be brushed aside from his favorite group, pisses me off beyond all belief. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (09/10/87)
In article <1121@gilsys.UUCP>, mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes:
) I am not interested in uPort information, as I do not make the silly
) mistake of operating on INTEL based pseudo-computers.
Then there are those of us who want tthe ability to run the mountain of PC
software... and, like it or not, there are 20 million of us out here.
) I have noted that
) >>50% of the articles on this newsgroup are uPort related. I think it's
) wonderful that someone like uPort is creating an operating system with some
) usefulness for your pseudo-computers, but *I DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT*!
)
) I therefore formally propose the formation of comp.unix.uPort, to provide
) a forum for the obviously significant audience interested in that topic.
) Given the traffic patterns in comp.unix.xenix for the past few months, I
) see no reason to take a vote. It seems to me that the group ought simply
) to be formed. In fact, if someone else HASN'T formed it by Sept. 8, I will
) take the responsibility for so doing.
I recall a couple of weeks ago, a discussion in news.groups on this very
subject. I don't know why the group hasn't been created yet, though.
) (seriously, I should apologize for my processor bigottry, and I do (sort
) of). But the uPort people *DO* need their own forum, now.)
Amen!
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: {hoptoad!academ!uhnix1}!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice what | {sun!housun!nuchat,seismo!soma!academ!uhnix1}
you can explain as stupidity.| GEnie: JAYMAYNARD/CI$: 71036,1603/K5ZC@WB5BBW
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) (09/10/87)
> [much blathering on Microport and anti-intel flames and anit-68K flames rm'd]
In June/July of this year I collected votes on a comp.unix.sys5 group
to be formed for the express purpose of being a place for uport and other
system V OSs. [reference <170@hobbes.UUCP> in news.groups] Of the 60some
votes I got, all but ONE were in favor of the sys5 group, and about half
also were interested in a Microport specific group. The editor of the
Microport mailing list also was in favor of a microport group. We all were
in agreement that the xenix group was the *wrong* place for this
discussion!
Greg Wood @ hao is now the bottleneck in the way of getting the group
formed. In the 2 months time since I concluded this poll I heard from mark
horton who was concerned that the name should be ...sysv instead of ...sys5
even though there is already a comp.bugs.sys5. Spaf was in the process of
moving, but he finally replied that Greg was handling this; several other
"names" replied voicing agreement. NONE of the backbones who replied were
against the group; all thought it was a Good Thing!
I submitted a proposal to the backbone (cbosgd.att.com!backbone) which
followed all the points of the proposed AND strawman newgroup guidelines,
demonstrated a sizable audience (50+ votes PLUS the readership of a 60
person-and-growing-by-5-or-10-weekly mailing list), and showed that there
was a large volume of postings in inapropriate newsgroups (xenix, ibm.pc).
What more can Greg ask for? If he is waiting for something, why isn't he
asking? If all's hunkey-dorey then where's the newgroup message?
-John <I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the effort> Plocher
PS. DosMerge 1.30 (based on the 2.3 kernal) is wonderful! !Much! better
than the 0.3 Beta version shipped in June! The product makes your Unix
filesystem into C: while E: becomes the DOS partition on your hard disk.
Running Reflex from within Unix is fun; using Microsoft C 4.0 is better,
but running Kneller's PC-DOS version of Larn (with colors...) takes the
cake! The 2.3 kernal fixes most of the known kernal bugs - I am still
going thru the buglists from uport to verify their claims! InfoWorld this
week is bubbling over the new ATT micros which "will run Unix and DOS at
the same time" - I've been doing that on my AT clone for 3 months now... :-)
--
John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDUjim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) (09/10/87)
In article <372@micropen>, dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) writes: > SV and XenixV. However, Microsoft isn't releasing the merge product until > sometime in 1989!! (Whereas we Microport developers will have had 3 years of > COFF and sdb and *real* systemV!) The press releases and public statements Microsoft has made state the release date of the merged Xenix/Unix product, which will be V.3.1 or V.3.2 based, to be mid 1988. A recent "shared technology" agreement with Altos was supposed to have accelerated the process. BTW, more and more I hear the merged product (jokingly) referred to as Xunix (Zoo-nix). -- Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA UUCP: ...ames!harvard!m2c!applix!jim ...rutgers!harvard!m2c!applix!jim
peter@sugar.UUCP (09/12/87)
In article <7283@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > In article <1121@gilsys.UUCP> mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > | I am not interested in uPort information, as I do not make the silly > |mistake of operating on INTEL based pseudo-computers. > > Since most of the Xenix in the world is now run on Intel based > computers, why don't you either (a) shut up, or (b) form a group called > unix.xenix.obsolete68k? I also think the 80x86 family is proof that god is dead, however in the real world it's the only way to get real UNIX on a small machine. Neither of you seem to be in touch with the real world, so why don't y'all send mail to each other for a while. Since the ideal solution (UNIX on a 68000 or better for less than 5 grand) doesn't exist, I'll keep my Amiga for the 68000 and use Microport for UNIX. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- 'U` ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not seismo!soma (blush)
gregg@a.cs.okstate.edu (Gregg Wonderly) (09/14/87)
in article <590@applix.UUCP>, jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) says: > A recent "shared technology" agreement with > Altos was supposed to have accelerated the process. BTW, more and more I > hear the merged product (jokingly) referred to as Xunix (Zoo-nix). > If it runs on an INTeL pseudo computer, then it is Zoo-nix, no? Gregg
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (09/14/87)
I have an interest in both XENIX and Microport systems as we sell
software and documentation for both but I still believe they should
be two groups. For those who want to talk about IBM PCs (running anything)
there is a group. For those who want to talk about architecture there
is a group. I could go on.
One of our consultants specializes in Microport. He uses a shell script
to grep all the news for Microport stuff as he has no interest in Xenix.
I would probably elect to read both groups but I am busy and would like
that choice.
--
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549,
Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX
...!uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (09/17/87)
In article <711@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: ... deleted stuff ... | I also think the 80x86 family is proof that god is dead, however in the real | world it's the only way to get real UNIX on a small machine. Neither of you | seem to be in touch with the real world, so why don't y'all send mail to each This is a xenix group. In the real world xenix is run on Intel processors. I was attempting to point that out to someone who wanted to reserve this group for "real xenix" (aka 68k flavor). ] | other for a while. Since the ideal solution (UNIX on a 68000 or better for | less than 5 grand) doesn't exist, I'll keep my Amiga for the 68000 and use Can you say 3B1? Until the end of the month you can get a 3B1 with 2MB memory, 67MB hard disk, sysV with virtual memory, and all support packages and manuals for <$3k. Contact your Hamilton Avnet dealer. ] | Microport for UNIX. I had to give up on MicroPort. I want to use my machine's serial ports. The problem "will be fixed in 2.3, or 2.4 for sure". I switched to Xenix. I like the attitude at MP better, but have had one too many "learning experiences" with them. The 386 version may be better. ] | -- | -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter | -- 'U` ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not seismo!soma (blush) -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/22/87)
In article <7395@steinmetz.UUCP>, (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > This is a xenix group. In the real world xenix is run on Intel > processors. For a long time the number 1 selling UNIX box was the Tandy model 16, with Xenix on a 68000. It was the price leader. > I was attempting to point that out to someone who wanted to > reserve this group for "real xenix" (aka 68k flavor). ] He was operating on faulty assumptions too. > | other for a while. Since the ideal solution (UNIX on a 68000 or better for > | less than 5 grand) doesn't exist, I'll keep my Amiga for the 68000 and use > Can you say 3B1? Until the end of the month you can get a 3B1 with 2MB > memory, 67MB hard disk, sysV with virtual memory, and all support > packages and manuals for <$3k. Contact your Hamilton Avnet dealer. ] First catch your 3B1. Certainly this deal wasn't available when I bought my machine, or if it was I had no way of knowing about it. I'm talking about what anyone can not only buy but also find out about through normal channels (computer stores and mail-order ads in magazines, mainly). Also, Microport beats this price by a thousand dollars. > | Microport for UNIX. > I had to give up on MicroPort. I want to use my machine's serial > ports. Yes, that's a problem. It doesn't however, make your machine's serial ports unusable. After all, I'm calling it up remotely while it's running uucico on one of the other ports. > I switched to Xenix. If you can afford to buy both Microport and Xenix you probably don't have any problems with paying more for your computer than for a small car. Some of us aren't so lucky. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today?
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (09/23/87)
As quoted from <711@sugar.UUCP> by peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | I also think the 80x86 family is proof that god is dead, however in the real | world it's the only way to get real UNIX on a small machine. Neither of you | seem to be in touch with the real world, so why don't y'all send mail to each | other for a while. Since the ideal solution (UNIX on a 68000 or better for | less than 5 grand) doesn't exist, I'll keep my Amiga for the 68000 and use | Microport for UNIX. +--------------- Why don't you hurry up and get a fire-sale 3B1 instead? $2700 (including tax) for a 2MB 3B1 with 67MB HD is darned good -- and it's a REAL computer with a REAL UNIX (even has shared libraries and demand paging, golly gee!). The only problem I have with it is that Convergent emasculated the UNIX (pun unintentional); but then, it being a 68010 with demand-paging hardware, we can always wait for GNU. (I suspect I'd prefer a BSD lookalike to System V anyway. But I haven't had a chance to find out, since I've almost no BSD experience.) I find that I prefer it to a whizbang 386-based Xenix system -- and the 386 is a pretty good processor (gasp!). -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>> "Mummy, what's an opinion?"