[comp.unix.microport] Unix Release 3.1

neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn) (08/27/88)

In article <306@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes:
>
>System V Release 3.2 is the result of the Microsoft-AT&T agreement to merge
>UNIX and Xenix. Of course, AT&T added a bunch of their own inventions, such
>as a curses that supports color etc, a form and menu language interpreter
>(looks much like shell scripts) and kernel hooks for NFS. And a new 2K file
>system (I have the papers to the left of my terminal). This version of
>System V is shipping RSN (please correct me if I'm wrong) for both the 3b2's
>and (ta-dam!) 386 processors! I hope most UNIX vendors for 286 and 386
>machines will use this as their base (I want this on my '286 at home).

One note - The 2k file system patch is available in Release 3.1.

Which brings up another point about Release 3.1 and Release 3.2 : These
kernels are getting big! A 3.1 kernel with Remote File Sharing, Network
Support Utilities, 2k File System, VP/ix, and some vendor's TCP/NFS
package will put the /unix file at over 800k - This wouldn't be so bad
except that Release 3.1 doesn't like big kernels, and in fact won't
boot a kernel that is over approximately 685k. This "bug" is fixed
in Release 3.2. By the way, this appears to be a 386-AT problem only.

Another piece of bad news in the "I Want It All" department - The DOS
under Unix product VP/ix is mutually exclusive with X-Windows 10.4.
Apparently the two packages have irreconcilable differences and can't
be installed at the same time. Too bad. Fortunately the install programs
are smart enough to tell you about this conflict, but not until after
you try to load in the second package in question. X-Windows does
require both the Remote File Sharing and Network Support utilities
packages, so it is a pretty safe bet that adding TCP and NFS to the
already bulging X-Windows kernel probably won't work with Release 3.1
either, though I haven't tried it myself.
-- 
Steven C. Neighorn            !tektronix!{psu-cs,reed,ogcvax}!qiclab!neighorn
Intel Corporation            "Where we BUILD the Star Fighters that defend the
Development Tools Operation      frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada"

sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (08/30/88)

In article <1611@qiclab.UUCP>, neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn) writes:
> 
> Another piece of bad news in the "I Want It All" department - The DOS
> under Unix product VP/ix is mutually exclusive with X-Windows 10.4.
> Apparently the two packages have irreconcilable differences and can't
> be installed at the same time. Too bad. Fortunately the install programs

Is this for 386's as well?  Then, it naturally follows, when Open Look
comes out on AT&T's 6386 we won't be able to run VP/ix with it?  Sheez!

-- 
Michael Sullivan				{uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA			sullivan@vsi.com
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries!  Pbbbt!"

wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (09/04/88)

In article <828@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
:In article <1611@qiclab.UUCP>, neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn) writes:
:> Another piece of bad news in the "I Want It All" department - The DOS
:> under Unix product VP/ix is mutually exclusive with X-Windows 10.4.
:Is this for 386's as well?  Then, it naturally follows, when Open Look
:comes out on AT&T's 6386 we won't be able to run VP/ix with it?  Sheez!

AT&T doesn't sell an X10.4 product.  The System V 3.2 for 386s will
have X11.2 (don't know if it's included or extra).  If the vendors you
got VP/ix and X10.4 from (Bell Tech??) don't work together, beat up on
them.  Actually, I'm not totally surprised - X wants to own the screen,
and VP/IX wants to parcel the screen out to DOS clones, and short of
running DOS in X windows, it's not obvious what a good solution is.
-- 
#Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
# Now I don't mean to insult the intelligence of the younger people here,
# but you really shouldn't try fire-eating on your own.  You shouldn't
# even be smoking cigarrettes like us ....... Unless you want to look cool.

les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) (09/04/88)

In article <231@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.[ho95c],2G218,x0705,) writes:
>them.  Actually, I'm not totally surprised - X wants to own the screen,
>and VP/IX wants to parcel the screen out to DOS clones, and short of
>running DOS in X windows, it's not obvious what a good solution is.

How about the same solution that applies to every other unix device?
Write a driver that supplies the required functions and an interlocking
mechanism to parcel them out to the applications that request them.  Then
you could have virtual terminals without having to fire up a DOS emulator
(seemed like a pretty strange concept to me anyway... unix in a dos window?). 

Les Mikesell

neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steve Neighorn) (09/04/88)

In article <828@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
>
>Is this for 386's as well?  Then, it naturally follows, when Open Look
>comes out on AT&T's 6386 we won't be able to run VP/ix with it?  Sheez!

This is true for Unix 3.1 on the 80386. Release 3.2 comes with X-Windows
11, in the same kind of a package that Release 3.1 came with 10.4.  The
latest version of VP/IX will work with X-Windows, at least on specific
80386 workstations. I believe that Open Look on the AT&T machine will run
with VP/ix - At least that is what I have been told.

-- 
Steven C. Neighorn            !tektronix!{psu-cs,reed,ogcvax}!qiclab!neighorn
Intel Corporation            "Where we BUILD the Star Fighters that defend the
Development Tools Operation      frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada"