scott@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Holt) (06/27/90)
Well, first off, find out from Oracle when they plan to support PTX as a platform. My understanding is that PTX and Dynix are not compatible. The current version of Oracle (6.0.30) runs under Dynix, though I am not sure if they "certify" it under 3.0.17. I don't know much about Ingress, but I am sure the same applies. This really applies to any piece of software you view as being important. PTX is VERY new and many vendors may not yet be supporting their software on it. Given the close relationship between Sequent and Oracle, however, I would hope that PTX support would at least be on the horizon. If you do need to be running Oracle under Dynix, then you must at least install the System V support...it is required by Oracle. I am not sure about Ingress. - Scott disclaimer: I speak only for myself. -- This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. Scott Holt, Systems Analyst Internet: scott@prism.gatech.edu Georgia Tech UUCP: ..!gatech!prism!scott Office of Information Technology, Technical Services
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) (06/27/90)
From article <2968@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, by stevedc@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Stephen Carter): > As things stand at present we are finding it a bit hard going - some > commands not working too well, other aspects being poor. As I understand it, the SYS VR2 on sequents is implemented on top of an early BSD 4.2 kernel. This means that some things which work fine in SYS V don't work on sequents 'cos the BSD kernel can't do it. Mandatory file locking is one example that comes to mind, also terminal drivers and the file system. Basically using SYS V on a sequent is fraught with danger, and the BSD is so old that you need to be careful when compiling software. If you've been reading this group you may have noticed many people complaining about the state of the software on sequents, well now you know why. -- ______ JANET :jonathan@uk.ac.keele.cs Jonathan Knight, / BITNET:jonathan%cs.kl.ac.uk@ukacrl Department of Computer Science / _ __ other :jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk University of Keele, Keele, (_/ (_) / / UUCP :...!ukc!kl-cs!jonathan Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K.
keith@sequoia.execu.com (Keith Pyle) (06/28/90)
In article <2968@syma.sussex.ac.uk> stevedc@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Stephen Carter) writes: > >We have recently got a Sequent S27 which we are getting up and installed >... > >The version of Dynix that has been delivered was 3.0.17. We have been >*strongly* advised to go att and ksh throughout because that is more >System V compatible, and less work would have to be done when we go up >to the next release of Dynix. > >... > >I have had some encouragement, from locals and from Sequent, to take an >early version of Dynix/ptx and implement it before our users go live because : > > 1 It will solve some of the current problems of strange > commands > > 2 It's nearly here anyway, so if we *start* with ptx on day one > as seen by our users, we'll not have to go through an upgrade > in not too many months time As someone else has already addressed the issue of using the att universe, I'll limit my comments to the ptx ones. First, we have been repeatedly told that Sequent has no plans to discontinue support for Dynix (they better not, if ptx is the alternative!). Indeed, a new release of Dynix is said to be in the works. I actually got to play with ptx at one point. It is billed as a POSIX compliant System V based OS. That's fine as far as it goes, which isn't far enough the last I knew. My major issue was that we were told by several different Sequent folks that NIS (nee Yellow Pages) would not be a part of ptx. If you've got a single system, so what? Here, we've got an S81, a Sun 3/180, an HP 9000/825, two DEC 3602's, and a Unisys U6000 plus about four dozen work stations, all of which run their respective flavors of Unix and communicate via TCP/IP *with* NIS on every one of them. I don't have the staff to administer these machines without something that provides the functionality of NIS and runs on each of these OS's. (If you want to tell me about the problems and faults of NIS, fine; please redirect your message to /dev/null and go work on something that will do at least everything NIS does *and* port it to these machines. I'll happily take a better solution.) Therefore, I will restate what I've told Sequent: I will not switch to ptx nor will I recommend that anyone who has a network environment do so. If they choose not to provide the support that is needed in today's environment (by discontinuing support for Dynix or by freezing it without providing an adequate ptx), then the next upgrade time will become an examination of other vendors. If Sequent has changed its plans and now intends NIS support in ptx, I would be interested to hear it (and a bit amused since the subject came up again in discussions with Sequent folks at USENIX week before last). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Pyle UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!keith Manager, Data Processing Services Dept. Internet: keith@execu.com Execucom Systems Corp. execu!keith@cs.utexas.edu 108 Wild Basin Road keith%execu.uucp@cs.utexas.edu Austin, Texas 78746 Ma Bell: 512-327-7070 Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are my own, keep your hands off! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kinch@ria.ccs.uwo.ca (Dave Kinchlea) (06/29/90)
I can see how not having NIS could be a problem and I do not intend to question that but I would like to comment on ptx in general. I was (am) part of a team at the Computer Science department here at Western who have been Beta testing ptx. We also have a Sequent running Dynix so I do have something to compare ptx with. In my opinion, ptx is a vast improvement over Dynix. As a user and a C programmer I find ptx a very nice platform, indeed I do most of my work on that machine, but when I try to port a program to Dynix I invariably had to make many changes and in some cases just give up. Ports from ptx to Sun 4.0x seem to go fairly easily, usually just different include files. There is certainly still some problems with ptx, it is afterall still a new product, but I feel sure that ptx will prove to be a very solid OS. cheers kinch /***************************************************************************/ Just for the record, I do not now, nor have I ever worked for Sequent, so I do not speak for them. Nor do I speak for the Computer Science department here or anywhere else for that matter. I just happen to like ptx (least ways I sure have liked playing with it for the last year!) /***************************************************************************/