wgreene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William H. Greene) (03/31/88)
I'm confused about what version of 386 Unix is currently available from
Microport. I'm currently running 2.2 (including SD system) which has no
Korn shell or Greenhills C. I thought I read in other messages in this
newsgroup that there was a 2.3 386 version that included these two pieces
of software. But when I call Microport to ask about an upgrade, they say
there is no 2.3 version. Is anybody out there running Microport with
Korn shell ? with Greenhills C ? If so, did it come as part of a standard
Microport release, from the Microport BB, or another source ? Since
Microport has been advertising these features for only around 3 months
now, I would expect that we would have to wait about another 3 months
to actually get them. Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Bill Greenekjk@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Ken Keirnan) (03/31/88)
In article <412@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> wgreene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William H. Greene) writes: >I'm confused about what version of 386 Unix is currently available from >Microport. I'm currently running 2.2 (including SD system) which has no >Korn shell or Greenhills C. I thought I read in other messages in this >newsgroup that there was a 2.3 386 version that included these two pieces >of software. But when I call Microport to ask about an upgrade, they say >there is no 2.3 version. Is anybody out there running Microport with >Korn shell ? with Greenhills C ? If so, did it come as part of a standard >Microport release, from the Microport BB, or another source ? Since >Microport has been advertising these features for only around 3 months >now, I would expect that we would have to wait about another 3 months >to actually get them. Thanks in advance for the clarification. > > Bill Greene Bill - To the best of my knowledge, Microport started including KSH a little late in the release of 386/2.2. You might try calling Microport to see if they will send you a free copy (well... you never know ;-)). The Greenhills C compiler still hasn't been released (as of last week) in its final form. The only version around is an early beta 1.8.2 release Microport sent to a few begging customers to test the water. The *real* release should be available soon (checks in the mail). The code produced by the Greenhills beta that I have is smaller and faster than the stock AT&T compiler produces. I'm looking forward to the first commercial release. Ken Keirnan -- -------- Ken Keirnan -- Pacific Bell -- {ihnp4,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhyf!kjk
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (03/31/88)
In article <412@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> wgreene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William H. Greene) writes: >I'm currently running 2.2 (including SD system) which has no >Korn shell or Greenhills C. I thought I read in other messages in this >newsgroup that there was a 2.3 386 version that included these two pieces >of software. But when I call Microport to ask about an upgrade, they say >there is no 2.3 version. Is anybody out there running Microport with >Korn shell ? with Greenhills C ? > > Bill Greene I've gotten alot of response about the cc compiler included with microport (from an earlier posting). The overall judgement was: stock 286 cc: almost useless stock 386 cc: worse (hard to believe) (note: your milage may vary due to road conditions ;-) I have also been informed that microport does none of their own developement on the stock compiler, hence the continuing unfixed bugs that are never resolved ( as promissed ) and put off until the next release! (hash table overflow?)(optimizer got you down lately?) It's a crock that microport won't package the same compiler tools that they use along with their product! Or wont use the compiler that they supposedly feel is complete enough to market, when they have NO IDEA how much a piece of &*^% it is! Anyone know where I can get the Greenhills compiler for the 286? (Note Greenhills People: serious purchase interest here!) [The amazing thing is that I *still* like microport!] [but I'll probably recomend SCO to anyone with (lots of) money!] ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!wtr ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!wtr =====================================================================
jmsully@uport.UUCP (John M. Sully) (04/06/88)
In article <24166@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: >It's a crock that microport won't package the same compiler tools >that they use along with their product! Or wont use the compiler >that they supposedly feel is complete enough to market, when they >have NO IDEA how much a piece of &*^% it is! We do. We use the both the stock V/AT and V/386 compilers for all development work here. The entire kernel and all utilities are compiled with the compilers which we ship with our products.
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (04/06/88)
IN article <24166@clyde.ATT.COM>, wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) wrote: > I've gotten alot of response about the cc compiler included with > microport (from an earlier posting). The overall judgement was: > stock 286 cc: almost useless > stock 386 cc: worse (hard to believe) > (note: your milage may vary due to road conditions ;-) I've done OK by not using the optimizer with the 386 compiler. > [The amazing thing is that I *still* like microport!] > [but I'll probably recomend SCO to anyone with (lots of) money!] It's not that I like Microport OR THE PRICE, but that I like SysV vs. Xenix. I recommend SCO to anyone who doesn't mind the Xenix hodge-podge (is it V7? is it SysIII? Is it SysV? who knows!). Their drivers are better. In addition, SCO can solve problems. I believe John Sully & others in uPort customer support would LIKE to help, but get zippo support from the rest of the company. I get replies to almost all mail to uport!techs, and even get back some answers to questions that took some research. But I have never, not once, not ever, received a bug fix from them. Yes, I have an update contract. No, I don't have the support contract, because no one could tell me how it would get useful support (ie, bugs fixed). Should SCO ever become SysVr3, I don't see continuing to use a unix that, three years later, doesn't have a working hard disk driver. I would *prefer* to get a working driver (and other lesser fixes), but I no longer view that as being a realistic expectation. -- James R. Van Artsdalen jva@astro.as.utexas.edu "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (04/07/88)
In article <328@uport.UUCP> jmsully@uport.UUCP (John M. Sully) writes: >In article <24166@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: > >>It's a crock that microport won't package the same compiler tools >>that they use along with their product! > >We do. We use the both the stock V/AT and V/386 compilers for all >development work here. The entire kernel and all utilities are compiled >with the compilers which we ship with our products. John is correct. I have recompiled some of their code with a 1.2 beta release compiler package and found it byte-for-byte compatible. Now for the big question. What has happened to the upgrade to the Portable Compiler package and (when) is it going to be released? Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.waterloo.edu Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (04/07/88)
In article <18061@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > In article <328@uport.UUCP> jmsully@uport.UUCP (John M. Sully) writes: > >In article <24166@clyde.ATT.COM> wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin) writes: > > > > > > In article <69@warner.bros> ef@bugs.UUCP (Elmer Fudd) writes: (just a little re-posting humor ;-) (I posted): > >>It's a crock that microport won't package the same compiler tools > >>that they use along with their product! (John posted): > >We do. We use the both the stock V/AT and V/386 compilers for all > >development work here. The entire kernel and all utilities are compiled > >with the compilers which we ship with our products. (Ross posted): > John is correct. I have recompiled some of their code with a 1.2 beta > release compiler package and found it byte-for-byte compatible. > > Now for the big question. What has happened to the upgrade to the > Portable Compiler package and (when) is it going to be released? Okay, first of all, my appologies to John and the folks at Uport for my off the collar accusations. But this was the information I recieved from a number of different sources, and I believed it to be true. Apparently, it was not. Steps taken: (1) Open mouth (2) Insert foot (3) Chew thuroughly and (4) Spit toes (:-) Next on the agenda, is there an upgrade for the PCC? If so, when is it due out, what does it take to be approved as a beta test site? I'm planning to do some large program developement for graphics, and also would love to get KSH up and running (HAS to be small model + optimized to work) John, does Uport use a Greenhills compiler at all for their 286 stuff? Finally, again I'd like to request to see if anybody has a set of EGA primatives out there for 2.3.0-L SV/AT ? I've also posted this request to the Uport BBS. I've gotten replies recently about some CGA & Hercules routines, and I'm looking at porting those over. MicroPort... The adventure continues.... ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!wtr ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!wtr =====================================================================
jmsully@uport.UUCP (John M. Sully) (04/12/88)
>Next on the agenda, is there an upgrade for the PCC? If so, when >is it due out, what does it take to be approved as a beta test site? >I'm planning to do some large program developement for graphics, >and also would love to get KSH up and running (HAS to be small >model + optimized to work) There is an update due out for the libraries, yacc, cflow, etc. but no fixes for PCC -- yet. BTW, KSH will be included in this upgrade. >John, does Uport use a Greenhills compiler at all for their 286 >stuff? As far as I know, Greenhills doesn't even make a 286 UNIX compiler. >Finally, again I'd like to request to see if anybody has a set >of EGA primatives out there for 2.3.0-L SV/AT ? I've also >posted this request to the Uport BBS. I've gotten replies >recently about some CGA & Hercules routines, and I'm looking at >porting those over. Someone on BIX (who lives in Germany) has these, but they have not been posted yet. John
john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) (04/13/88)
In article <330@uport.UUCP>, jmsully@uport.UUCP (John M. Sully) writes: > >Next on the agenda, is there an upgrade for the PCC? If so, when > >is it due out, what does it take to be approved as a beta test site? > >I'm planning to do some large program developement for graphics, > >and also would love to get KSH up and running (HAS to be small > >model + optimized to work) > > There is an update due out for the libraries, yacc, cflow, etc. but no fixes > for PCC -- yet. BTW, KSH will be included in this upgrade. What about floating point for the 286 - any fixes in sight yet? It's bad enough that legitimate floating point doesn't work correctly but having the entire system crash while trying to do a legit floating operation is too much - or was it fixed and I don't know about it? John (really wanting to run my programs) Chapman ...!ubc-vision!fornax!bby-bc!john
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (04/19/88)
In article <275@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: >What about floating point for the 286 - any fixes in sight yet? >It's bad enough that legitimate floating point doesn't work correctly >but having the entire system crash while trying to do a legit floating >operation is too much - or was it fixed and I don't know about it? Me too. I've had so many other problems, that I almost forgot about this one! What a pain! It's amazing what Microport can get away with. If they fewer problems, a lot of the stuff I'm not too worried about now would be a top priority. With Microport, just getting it to work is top priority. "Little" problems like malloc, floating point, csh bugs, etc. etc. don't seem very important anymore. -- David Beckemeyer | "Yuh gotta treat people jes' like yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | do mules. Don't try to drive 'em. Jes' 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | leave the gate open a mite an' let 'em UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | bust in!"