pa1900@ucsd.edu (04/17/89)
I am reviewing IBM's new PC Unix (AIX) for Unixworld magazine. I am going to talk about AIX and compare it to System V. I would like to hear from anyone who would like to express opinions on either of the following: (1) What would you like to see in such a review? (2) Do you have any comments on AIX vs. System V? I will be using a PS/2 model 70 to run the OS's. Does anyone have a suggestion as to which OS should be the System V representative? Thanks for your input.
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (05/12/89)
in article <1048@altos86.UUCP>, pa1900@ucsd.edu says: > Approved: dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM > I will be using a PS/2 model 70 to run the OS's. Does anyone > have a suggestion as to which OS should be the System V > representative? I would think that if your were going to run stright IBM on the one hand, I would run stright AT&T on the other. Get a 386E from AT&T and put their SVR3.2 on it. That way you can claim stright from the source comparison... I don't knowhow they'll stack up. IF you are gonna review the packages do a sub-segment on "what you have to buy separately" with a disclamer about bundling by sub distributors. I would also be interested in the number/type of other-companies computers that will run the two packages or ports thereof. How much of a bitch is support. an "as advertised" check on promary features (like simultask and xenix compatibility or whatever IBM's equabilant are if any and vice versa.) n-stuff like that. Rob.
jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye sys adm) (05/12/89)
In article <1048@altos86.UUCP>, pa1900@ucsd.edu writes: > > (1) What would you like to see in such a review? Applications. Real ones for AIX on the 386. > (2) Do you have any comments on AIX vs. System V? IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time. > I will be using a PS/2 model 70 to run the OS's. Does anyone > have a suggestion as to which OS should be the System V > representative? Interactive Systems 386/ix System V 3.2 or SCO's UNIX 3.2 (which is in beta now) would be two good choices. They are both available on the PS/2 386. -- Jeff Tye southwest!/usr/group The Southwest U.S. chapter of /usr/group c/o Copperstate Business Systems voice (602) 244-9391 ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!swusrgrp!jeff swusrgrp (602) 275-2541
bass@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu (Vance Bass) (06/12/89)
In article <1100@altos86.UUCP> jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye sys adm) writes: >IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that >IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and >useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time. *** flame warning *** Speaking only for myself, I have to register disgusted surprise at this comment. I hate to even give it credibility by treating it seriously, but there ARE a couple of things which come to mind. The IBM compilers qualify as very advanced. I refer interested (and impartial) readers to the May issue of Unix Review. AIX PS/2 blows away the competition (including the other Unix flavors on the same hardware). It is also less expensive that the other systems reviewed. DOS Merge qualifies, too. OK, I know that everyone has it, but I believe that it's fair to point out its origin in the Locus project, source of AIX PS/2 and sponsored by IBM. Probably the least tangible (for now, anyway) benefit of AIX is that it offers an alternative to the tightening noose of AT&T and Sun. Perhaps you found it comfortable, but there were plenty of others who didn't like the way things were headed. Competition is a Good Thing, inherent in the Unix market, and certainly a feature of AIX which AT&T is striving to emulate (at least since OSF turned the heat up...). *** end flame *** -- Vance Bass The opinions expressed here are strictly IBM M&SG my own, and do not necessarily Knoxville, TN represent IBM's views on the subject.
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (06/12/89)
> IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that > IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and > useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time. System V advanced? Surely you jest. Just in the networking area alone, it is woefully deficient. Sure you can go out and by networking options, but TCP is already in AIX. You're an AT&T Meglomaniac if you think that IBM, DEC, Sun, etc.. have nothing to add to UNIX. Much of what really IS UNIX came from the outside. Vi, fsck, curses, NFS, TCP/IP, X, etc... had nothing to do with AT&T. Some of these were done by Universities (frequently with industry backing), some by the computer manufacturers themselves. -Ron
mark@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (06/12/89)
[Moderators Note:- OK, I think we've beaten this subject to death. Let's just agree to disagree. -Der] In article <1100@altos86.UUCP> jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye sys adm) writes: > >> (2) Do you have any comments on AIX vs. System V? > >IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that >IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and >useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time. This is not necessarily true. Although System V is definitly "advanced", the emergence of the POSIX standards should give time for IBM, and the OSF in general, to catch up. I think you will see a new trend in the industry soon--"I want more value to my operating system: make it standard". Already the users have been asking for this, and various national and international standards are now emerging to make this possible. What does this mean for AIX and System V? System V will have to take a step back and make the system "standard". Once they do that then thay can move forward again, building new things into their system. However, there is a new organization, Unix International, which is responsible for sheparding the development of System V. UI may well slow the advance of System V to assure that various standards are met, or at least moving in single direction, rather than growing like an ameoba. This slow down will allow AIX and other vendors to catch up in the game. Although AT&T has a lot of clout, there is still plenty of room for growth in the marketplace. AIX can use the time which AT&T is using to regroup to build a POSIX conforming system of their own. Obviously, it will still be new, and probably somewhat buggy, but there should be a number of immediate users (namely all of the members of OSF) who can shake out the system. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I don't think it will be quite as cut and dried as stated above. -- Mark H. Colburn mark@jhereg.mn.org Minnetech Consulting, Inc.
thw9759@ultb.UUCP (T.H. White) (07/07/89)
In article <1100@altos86.UUCP>, jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye sys adm) writes: > > IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that > IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and > useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time. > > Interactive Systems 386/ix System V 3.2 or SCO's UNIX 3.2 (which > is in beta now) would be two good choices. They are both available on the > PS/2 386. > Well, I think that IBM's AIX blows system V right out of the water! It has all of system V's goodies plus a few from BSD like sockets. AIX also has a virtual terminal support which tops windows any day. If AIX gets out there and the price gets low enough to compete with system V (maybe already is) and the price of the PS/2 hardware would lower also, that AIX could potentially be as big a hit as DOS. Plus, with AIX, and the PS/2's you have IBM support which beats AT&T any day. IBM is NOT wasting their time, merely trying to compete and hold the edge. THW
mlindsey@x102c.harris-atd.com (Lindsey MS 04396) (07/11/89)
In article <3477@altos86.Altos.COM> thw9759@ultb.UUCP (T.H. White) writes: >Well, I think that IBM's AIX blows system V right out of the water! It has >all of system V's goodies plus a few from BSD like sockets. > >Plus, with AIX, and the PS/2's you have IBM support which beats AT&T >any day. IBM is NOT wasting their time, merely trying to compete and >hold the edge. I certainly agree that AT&T has missed the boat. Because of their arrogance and incompetence, the UNIX market has splintered. Maybe their alliance with SUN with help give them a clue of what people want. I expect AIX to be a very good OS in the future. It looks like IBM is fixing some of the big problems with Sys V UNIX like security and tape utilities. Hopefully the increased competition will make AT&T improve. Does anyone out there have any experience with AIX or Mach? Enquiring minds want to know. "The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad" S. Dali "If the shoe fits, buy it!" Imelda Marcos. Steve Lindsey |-) uunet!x102a!mlindsey (407) 727-5893 :-) mlindsey@x102a.harris-atd.com
Dion_L_Johnson@cup.portal.com (07/11/89)
In some article, Ted White wrote:
-In article <1100@altos86.UUCP>, jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye sys adm) writes:
-> IBM is wasting their time. System V is so far advanced and accepted that
-> IBM has no chance of catching up. Unless AIX has some very advanced and
-> useful features, it's a waste of everybody's time.
-> Interactive Systems 386/ix System V 3.2 or SCO's UNIX 3.2 (which
-> is in beta now) would be two good choices. They are both available on the
-> PS/2 386.
-
-Well, I think that IBM's AIX blows system V right out of the water! It has
-all of system V's goodies plus a few from BSD like sockets. AIX also has
-a virtual terminal support which tops windows any day. If AIX gets out
-there and the price gets low enough to compete with system V (maybe
-already is) and the price of the PS/2 hardware would lower also, that AIX
-could potentially be as big a hit as DOS.
-
-Plus, with AIX, and the PS/2's you have IBM support which beats AT&T
-any day. IBM is NOT wasting their time, merely trying to compete and
-hold the edge.
- THW
SCO UNIX System V Release 3.2 is now shipping. It has BSD style
sockets, multiple screens/sessions at console and terminals, as well
as windowing environments. It's $895 and runs on _real_ 386s as
well as microchannel machines. ;-) I dont want to start another
support-flame-war, but many people have said that SCO support
is pretty good.
Dion L. Johnson disclaimer: They dont know I said this.uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) (07/12/89)
>From article <3503@altos86.Altos.COM>, by mlindsey@x102c.harris-atd.com (Lindsey MS 04396): > Does anyone out there have any experience with AIX or Mach? Enquiring minds > want to know. AIX - Yes, I do. Technical questions are welcome (though I'm not sure if I'll be knowledgable enough to respond (:-). Uri.
mrdh@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (mark.hoffman) (07/21/89)
[Moderators note:- I have been having trouble getting in touch with certain people on the mailing list. Those of you who are currently on the list, or those who would like to be on the list should send me mail, and include a valid domain address and/or a 'bang-path'. If you have trouble sending mail to me, then just post the reply, and I'll weed it out. Thanks... - Der] This is long-winded, but I just had to respond to the following items: In some article, THW writes: > >Well, I think that IBM's AIX blows system V right out of the water! It has >all of system V's goodies plus a few from BSD like sockets. AIX also has >a virtual terminal support which tops windows any day. If AIX gets out >there and the price gets low enough to compete with system V (maybe >already is) and the price of the PS/2 hardware would lower also, that AIX >could potentially be as big a hit as DOS. > >Plus, with AIX, and the PS/2's you have IBM support which beats AT&T >any day. IBM is NOT wasting their time, merely trying to compete and >hold the edge. > > THW IBM is wasting their time, and ours. AIX is based on UNIX System V Release 2, (YES 2!) and has none, repeat none, of the "goodies" that System V Release 3 has, notably STREAMS and TLI, the combination of which is recognized as superior in the industry to sockets (see "The STREAMS Machine", Mini-Micro Systems, February 1989). I dont know what release of System V THW is familiar with, but the System V/386 versions now coming out are based on Release 3. It's unclear in what decade OSF/IBM will come out with a version of AIX that approaches the functionality available in UNIX System V Release 3. IBM is ludicrously far behind in UNIX System development. If not for IBM's divisive efforts to standardize the UNIX System around AIX, AIX would be dead today. That's not to say that AIX is not a serious competitor in the marketplace for those who don't mind running yesterday's technology gotten second-hand from a company whose profit margins are guaranteed by proprietary hardware and software (hats off to microchannel!). While I'm at it: In article <3503@altos86.Altos.COM> mlindsey@x102c.harris-atd.com (Lindsey MS 04396) writes: > >I certainly agree that AT&T has missed the boat. Because of their arrogance >and incompetence, the UNIX market has splintered. Maybe their alliance with >SUN with help give them a clue of what people want. On the contrary, it was IBM that missed the boat; they're now furiously trying to catch up. AT&T did not splinter the UNIX marketplace. People found UNIX so useful and portable that offshoots of the original UNIX System proliferated. Notably, XENIX, SUNOS, and BSD. AT&T, in UNIX System V Release 4.0, is offering BSD/SUNOS/XENIX compatibility as a major feature. Rather than being "arrogant and incompetent", AT&T is attempting to offer a single UNIX System platform that users of other variants can move towards to increase the portability and reusability of code, and achieve greater hardware (vendor) independence. IBM's AIX is a step back in time. > >I expect AIX to be a very good OS in the future. It looks like IBM is fixing >some of the big problems with Sys V UNIX like security and tape utilities. Tell me more. In light of your comment below, I don't think you know. However, "in the future" is an apt phrase. >Does anyone out there have any experience with AIX or Mach? Enquiring minds >want to know. > What are you basing your comments on if you don't have experience with AIX? I've seen it, and I'm unimpressed. Any of the System V/386 alternatives cited in previous postings (SCO pops to mind, as well as AT&T's own version) are superior to AIX. Adding to all this the new "goodies" that ATT is adding to UNIX System V in Release 4, I can't help but think that the IBM/OSF propaganda machine is succeeding in getting people to believe that they can somehow jump into UNIX System development and do it better than the people who have been doing it for years (I don't mean just AT&T). It seems like someone at Big Blue woke up a while back and said "Hey, we better get into this UNIX stuff!" It seems to me that all they really wanted to do was throw a great big monkey wrench at AT&T in the hopes that they could catch up in the interim. Mark Hoffmann Summit, NJ The opinions expressed above are mine, not AT&T's. UNIX is a registered trademark of Bell Laboratories.