eeproks@gitpyr.UUCP (02/17/87)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Keywords: xenix, unix, pc/ix... Before anyone starts another holy war over tiny technical points, plaese read this carfully. I will try and word it as to be as unambiguous as possible: I use (and love) unix on quite a few different machines. The SV machines are primarily 3B1's, 3B2's and 3B20's. I would like the machine that I use at home to provide the same environment that I am use to at work. Of course, this all has to be done on a budget. IBM machines and clones are cheap, BUT... 1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. 2) How close is PC/IX to System III. The point is that I want Unix, not something that looks a whole lot like Unix, on my home machine. Before you flame me for whatever reason, please realize that I have never used Xenix before and I am not fully enlightened in the mysteries of the IBM PC ( I much prefer my 3Bn's, Sun's and Masscomp's). Thanks for the help. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- K. J. Seefried iii ComputerGraphical Mathematics Lab School of Mathematics Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 UUCP : gatech!gitpyr!eeproks ARPA : eeproks@pyr.ocs.gatech.edu !gt-ginko!ken ken@ginko.math.gatech.edu !gt-vlsib!eeproks eeproks@vlsib.ics.gatech.edu
spf@clyde.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <3108@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> eeproks@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >I would like the machine that I use at >home to provide the same environment that I am use to at work. >1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. I run XENIX System V on an AT&T PC 6300 at work, and often use (through cu) Unix System V on VAXes and 3B20s. I have set up all of my .profiles to put the system name in my PS1 prompt, **SO THAT I CAN TELL WHICH SYSTEM I AM CURRENTLY ADDRESSING**! Enough said? Yeah, when you write LOW-level or large C programs (not the usual kind) you might be able to tell, mostly because you're on a 16-bit machine -- if your minis were PDP-11s you would probably not even notice that. Except for big programs (> 64K) EVERYTHING I have tried to port went without a hitch. I have a common shell script library across machines. You do, however, get an additional advantage: you can READ and WRITE MS-DOS files, and you can develop (cross-compile) programs to run under DOS. It doesn't even perform too badly for one or two people, unless you have nroff, make, or uucico running in the background... Steve *** Why would I waste my time expressing someone else's opinion?
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <3108@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, eeproks@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > 1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. > 2) How close is PC/IX to System III. #1. Most current XENIX's are probably system V enough to compile most system V programs, but at last check neither worked real well. It is not however VR2, but does have most of the SVID library calls. #2. PC/IX, though System III-ish is riddled with silly ISCisms. Anyway although I can live with VR2, I can't deal with III. Much of the problem is that the thing still has to run on an 80x86 where x is less than 3. This environment is hell on any system. Anyhow, BELL TECHNOLOGIES, a company that sells PC disk drives and PC/AT clones, sells real system V for the PC/AT. At one time they'd give away free system V with a disk drive purchase. Their number is 1-800-FOR-UNIX (catchy, eh?). -Ron
grs@houxa.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <3108@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, eeproks@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > > > I use (and love) unix on quite a few different machines. The SV machines > are primarily 3B1's, 3B2's and 3B20's. I would like the machine that I > use at home to provide the same environment that I am use to at work. Of > course, this all has to be done on a budget. IBM machines and clones are > cheap, BUT... > > 1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. > Sorry to post this but my mail couldn't reach you. Sys V Xenix was not ported from SysV, it was derived from the older version of Xenix. There are may differences between Xenix SysV and the SysV you find on ATT machines. I use Multiport SysV on a PC clone and find it to be almost identical to the SysV I use at work on 3B20s, Vaxes and 3B2s. It's drawbacks are mostly its lack of DOS support. (It should improve soon with a Simula like product soon to be released.) Another big advantage is that it cost a fraction of what Xenix does! Glenn Sills BTL - Merrmack Valley (617) 681-6437 !houxa!grs
philip@axis.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <3108@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, eeproks@gitpyr.UUCP writes: > I use (and love) unix on quite a few different machines. The SV machines > are primarily 3B1's, 3B2's and 3B20's. I would like the machine that I use at > home to provide the same environment that I am use to at work. Of course, > this all has to be done on a budget. IBM machines and clones are cheap, BUT.. > > 1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. It is not the same. However, it does support all of the S5.2 system calls, and most of the utilities are there. The administration is somewhat different, but you can generally ignore the pretty interfaces if you know what you are doing. The real problem is the architecture of the PC/AT - you just have to remember that whatever anyone tries to say it is a toy machine. UNIX does not fit in well with its segmented architecture. But I think that this must apply to any attempt to put UNIX onto the 286, and should not be taken as a critisisim of XENIX. The multi-model compiler generally works, but again it will seem like a toy compared against a 'real' C compiler on a 'real' machine. Having said all that, when you persuade yourself to live with the limitations, XENIX V is not so bad ... I could live with one at home. But for "serious" work I will always prefer my VAX with S5.2 and virtual memory .... > 2) How close is PC/IX to System III. Never used it, so I will leave that to someone who has. > The point is that I want Unix, not something that looks a whole lot like > Unix, on my home machine. It is not a 'look alike' in the usual sense, but remember that it started life as V7 and has been kept up-to-date since. I believe that the next issue of SCO XENIX is a re-port based upon S5.2 sources, so may be you should wait for that (it is supposed to be available at the end of this month). Philip
rich@wlbreng1.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <626@brl-sem.ARPA>, ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > > Anyhow, BELL TECHNOLOGIES, a company that sells PC disk drives and PC/AT > clones, sells real system V for the PC/AT. At one time they'd give away > free system V with a disk drive purchase. Their number is 1-800-FOR-UNIX > (catchy, eh?). The company that makes the System V for the BELL machine is: Microport Systems, Inc. 4200 Scotts Valley Drive Scots Valley, CA 95066 (408) 438-UNIX (California only) (800) PC2-UNIX (outside California) And what gives Microport an edge over */ix from ISC and ESPECIALLY Xenix ? a) Cost Runtime System (System V and over 180 utilities) 159.00 Software Development System (Includes a 80286 SPECIFIC compiler) 169.00 Text Preparation System (Nroff, Troff, Spell, Etc.) 169.00 Complete System (All of the above together) 439.00 Unlimited User Upgrade 169.00 (This is not an error!! The whole system WITH manuals for $439.00) b) Real System V Don't listen to SCO, Microsoft or any people claiming that SCO V is REAL system V. If you do any kind of code development and want TRUE code compatibility across System V machines, why bother with a LOOK ALIKE ? Get REAL System V. And if you don't think that's an accurate statement, compile your program using the terminfo library on Xenix. SURPRISE!! And that's NOT low level code either. c) SVID compatibility Are you REAL sick of adb'ing your code ? Microport uses the standard COFF and delivers sdb with the system. This alone is worth $439.00. Where else does SCO Xenix drop the ball ? System Vism SCO Xenix Microport COFF no yes sdb no yes f77 no yes SysV make no yes ctrace no yes cflow yes yes termio no yes profiler no yes crash no yes bdblk no yes dcopy no yes fuser no yes fsdb no yes ff no yes volcopy no yes finc,frec no yes sar no yes sadp no yes diskusg no yes di-troff no yes pic no yes mv macros no yes shl no yes d) Third Party Software There is a massive effort on the part of many of the large third party vendors to port their product to Microport System V. Also, I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of Microport installing Xenix executable compatibility into the next release of their system (V.3 for the 80386 due in July). I do not make all of these claims based on vague second hand knowledge. I use AT&T system V on Vaxen and 68K Boxes 40+ hours a week. I also have SCO Xenix V on an IBM PC/AT. I have ported applications using everything from ioctl() to reset_shell_mode(). The porting curve (or curse) to Xenix is awesome. NEVER should there be a porting problem of this size going from one System V to another (unless it's System V that you're porting). This leaves me with one conclusion: Xenix V is NOT System V. Ok, I'm through waving Microports flag. You may now flame the daylights out of me. -- Richard L. Pettit, Jr. Software Engineer Research and Development Eaton Inc., IMSD 31717 La Tienda Dr. Box 5009 MS #208 Westlake Village, CA 91359 { voder,ihnp4,trwrb,scgvaxd,jplgodo }!wlbr!wlbreng1!rich
kimcm@olamb.UUCP (02/22/87)
Well, for casual users the interface to XENIX V looks much the same as UNIX V, same system calls + some backward compatible calls for XENIX III. But when you're trying to do some administrative work - setting up terminals etc. you'll quicly finds that XENIX owns a lot to V7 UNIX in its way to do this - which is very confusing when you're expecting a SVID compatable way of setting these things up (inittab & gettydefs). So I would say that XENIX V is some sort of hybrid system between V7, System III and "real" System V, but with a strong touch of system V. Kim Chr. Madsen
root@sdd.UUCP (02/24/87)
In article <3108@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> eeproks@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >I use (and love) unix on quite a few different machines. The SV machines >are primarily 3B1's, 3B2's and 3B20's. I would like the machine that I use at >home to provide the same environment that I am use to at work. Of course, >this all has to be done on a budget. IBM machines and clones are cheap, BUT... >1) Is SCO and IBM Xenix the same as AT&T Unix System V.2. No. It is version 7 unix, modified and extended with most of the features of System 5 Release 2. There are just a few features missing, though some may be relatively important (sdb). >2) How close is PC/IX to System III. Probably reasonably close. >The point is that I want Unix, not something that looks a whole lot like >Unix, on my home machine. Before you flame me for whatever reason, please >realize that I have never used Xenix before and I am not fully enlightened >in the mysteries of the IBM PC ( I much prefer my 3Bn's, Sun's and Masscomp's). I suggest that you utilize a IBM or clone utilizing either a 80286, or 80386 processor. These contain memory management, and are considerably more powerfull than that on the PC. For these machines you may also get real AT&T Unix ported by a company called Microport including sdb and everything else that is a part of "standard SV.2". Of interest is a new announcement by AT&T that I read in MicroMarketWOrld that says that AT&T & Microsoft will develop Unix System V for Intel's 386. This version of Unix System V will allow Xenix system V applications and Unix System V applications to run on the same operating system, and it also means that there will be NO XENIX-386!!!! Daniel Corbett V. President of Engineering Software Design & Development Corp. Camarillo, CA ihnp4!nrcvax!sdd!root