wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (05/26/88)
In article <May.25.20.30.23.1988.15132@aramis.rutgers.edu> hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: >However I am reluctant to recommend SV/AT in any configuration, lest I >mislead people into believing that I endorse it. I had originally >written a long paragraph describing the reasons I can't stand SV/AT. >(My problems are not with Microport specifically, by the way, but with >System V.) Because this group has generally been mercifully free of >flames, I've decided to omit it. However I would like to be sure that >no one interprets my participation in this group as meaning that I >consider system V release 2 as an acceptable operating system, >particularly for a personal computer. Well -- would you care to tell us what **IS** an acceptable OS for a personal computer? MS-DOS? OS/2? Why, then, are you using UNIX System V? And what, specifically, makes UNIX System V Release 2 so unacceptable? Now that you have whet our appetites, let us hear it! There is a difference between reasonable criticism and flames (although many netters don't seem to know that difference). By all means lets have reasonable criticism -- after all this is not comp.ostrich (head in the sand) :-). -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (05/27/88)
In article <96@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > In article <May.25.20.30.23.1988.15132@aramis.rutgers.edu> hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > >However I am reluctant to recommend SV/AT in any configuration, lest I > >mislead people into believing that I endorse it. > >(My problems are not with Microport specifically, by the way, but with > >System V.) > > Well -- would you care to tell us what **IS** an acceptable OS for a personal > computer? I would suggest to Chuck Hedrick that having a flat 32-bit address space with virtual memory instead of being saddled with a 286 makes a lot more difference in one's attitude towards System V than you'd expect. I've used SCO XENIX on a 286, and both SCO XENIX and Bell Tech's UNIX 5.3.0 on a 386, and the difference between the 286 and the 386 in terms of what can be ported easily (i.e., little more than being recompiled) is enormous. I find that the Sys V/BSD dichotomy is getting a little unconvincing. I'm a 4.3BSD fan, but my home machine doesn't run it, and probably won't ever (unless I finally save for that Sun 386i). I find SCO XENIX 386 a perfectly fine environment, and with GNU Emacs and MH/sendmail/smail ported, along with its multiple login screens accessible via ALT-Fn, it's a creditable workstation surrogate. My experience with Bell Tech UNIX 386 5.3.0 is more recent, but it all seems to work, and with their ethernet card and Streamlined Networks TCP/IP code, it interoperates with VS2000s and RT/PCs pretty well on a campus network (missing right now are BIND and any SMTP server, but that is pretty minor, the latter only awaiting some spare time on my part. I can live with a host table right now [millions do].) I am given to wonder what the nature of Chuck's objections are. I know it isn't BSD, but I've found that just to be a matter of accustomization and customization. You can't get a BSD box yet for the same price as a 386 box running XENIX 386, Bell Tech UNIX or Microport. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!dyer