chris@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Chris VandenBerg) (05/10/88)
Good morning all! I am going to be running Honeywell and Data General systems on a LAN soon and have been told by a customer that they have TCP/IP implement- ations running on them. Does anyone have any comments, suggestions, war stories or anything else that relates to these implementations? I have never been one for reinventing the wheel and would be very grateful for any input that could make this a bit easier. Thanks in advance, Chris VandenBerg ACC chris@acc-sb-unix.arpa
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (05/11/88)
In article <8805091745.AA24461@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA> chris@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Chris VandenBerg) writes: >Good morning all! > I am going to be running Honeywell and Data General systems on a >LAN soon and have been told by a customer that they have TCP/IP implement- >ations running on them. I don't know about DG, but I know that Honeywell Bull has several completely unrelated operating systems, running on almost as many different hardware architectures: GCOS-8, Multics, GCOS-6, and HVS1 to name a few (there's another I know of, but can't think of the name). Which one are you talking about? Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
pete@BRILLIG.UMD.EDU (Pete Cottrell) (05/13/88)
In article <8805091745.AA24461@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA> chris@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Chris VandenBerg) writes: >Good morning all! > I am going to be running Honeywell and Data General systems on a >LAN soon and have been told by a customer that they have TCP/IP implement- >ations running on them. At one point we had an MV10000 running beta releases of DG's UN*X (DG/UX) implementation (SYSV-based). We were at level 3.0, I believe. They included a TCP/IP implementation and also included the Berkeley r-commands, as well as NFS. It seemed to work, although it seemed as though the ethernet board would veg out every once in a while. Since the machine was never really heavily used, and we had no source for the beast, we never really dug into the problem. Towards the end of its stay here, we went to 3.1 level of DG/UX and soon after got rid of it for a variety of reasons. This was about a year ago. I can't really vouch for how things stand now, I'm just speaking up to confirm that yes, there is a TCP/IP implementation for Data General machines, available from them, at least under DG/UX.
john@uw-nsr.UUCP (John Sambrook) (05/26/88)
>In article <8805091745.AA24461@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA> chris@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Chris VandenBerg) writes: >Good morning all! > I am going to be running Honeywell and Data General systems on a >LAN soon and have been told by a customer that they have TCP/IP implement- >ations running on them. > We are running DG/UX 3.11.1 and have DG/UX TCP/IP installed. I believe the product is derived from 4.2BSD (not 4.3) so it may have some of the bugs that were present in that release. However, Data General seems to update it fairly frequently so I imagine reported bugs would be fixed in a reasonable length of time. It works fine, modulo the following limitations: 1. No support for using nameservers or resolvers. You have to (try to) maintain an up-to-date copy of /etc/hosts. Not at all easy these days. 2. The ping program says one of two things: "xxx is alive" or "no answer from xxx." To be fair, I think that some of these will be fixed at the next major TCP/IP release (coinciding with DG/UX 4.0). Hope this helps. -- John Sambrook Internet: john@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu University of Washington RC-05 UUCP: uw-nsr!john Seattle, Washington 98195 Dial: (206) 548-4386