larry@focsys.uucp (Larry Williamson) (08/14/90)
I'm upgrading our system to ISC's Unix 2.2. We have quite a few 3rd party applications that I must re-install. So far they have all installed with no problem. But of course, there is an exception. SCO's Professional is not cooperating. Procalc is okay, it is the pro manager that is not working. When I start "pro", the process rapidly consumes all of the available memory, growing to consume all of the swap space too. The version is 2.0.0. Has anyone had any trouble with this package? -Larry
root@ninja.dell.com (Randy Davis) (08/15/90)
In article <LARRY.90Aug14151705@focsys.uucp> larry@focsys.uucp (Larry Williamson) writes: [.(isc 2.2)...] |SCO's Professional is not cooperating. | |Procalc is okay, it is the pro manager that is not working. When I |start "pro", the process rapidly consumes all of the available memory, |growing to consume all of the swap space too. | |The version is 2.0.0. | |Has anyone had any trouble with this package? Yep. Try changing your TERM variable to something like "ansi". TERM=at386 seems to cause the swap space problem. Don't ask me *why*, I just noticed it a while back when performing software compatibility testing of our version of UNIX (Dell UNIX 1.1, an enhanced UNIX based on ISC's) with some new machines. Randy Davis UUCP: rjd@ninja.dell.com --
larry@focsys.uucp (Larry Williamson) (08/16/90)
In article <8436@uudell.dell.com> Randy Davis writes: > In article <LARRY.90Aug14151705@focsys.uucp> Larry Williamson (ME!) writes: > [.(isc 2.2)...] > |SCO's Professional is not cooperating. > | > |Procalc is okay, it is the pro manager that is not working. When I > |start "pro", the process rapidly consumes all of the available memory, > |growing to consume all of the swap space too. > | > |The version is 2.0.0. > | > |Has anyone had any trouble with this package? > > Yep. Try changing your TERM variable to something like "ansi". > TERM=at386 seems to cause the swap space problem. > > Don't ask me *why*, I just noticed it a while back when > performing software compatibility testing of our version of UNIX > (Dell UNIX 1.1, an enhanced UNIX based on ISC's) with some new > machines. That was it! What on earth could cause such bizzare behaviour?!?!? I had noticed that the ISC UNIX 2.2 terminfo for at386 is still broken. I had to fix it in 2.0.2 and now I've applied the fixes to 2.2. This has corrected this problem. My memory is not that great, but I think the terminfo for at386 has been broken since before 1.0.6 days. After every release, patches and fixes are posted, but only us lowly users seem to pay any attention to these fixes. I will re-post this *correct* at386 entry if anyone is interested. I doubt it is entirely bug free, but it does the obvious things right (gnu emacs likes it, for example!). Thanks for the pointer Randy. -Larry
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (08/21/90)
>I had noticed that the ISC UNIX 2.2 terminfo for at386 is still broken. >I had to fix it in 2.0.2 and now I've applied the fixes to 2.2. This >has corrected this problem. I wonder if the ISC folks will catch it this time around. >My memory is not that great, but I think the terminfo for at386 has >been broken since before 1.0.6 days. After every release, patches and >fixes are posted, but only us lowly users seem to pay any attention to >these fixes. > >I will re-post this *correct* at386 entry if anyone is interested. I >doubt it is entirely bug free, but it does the obvious things right >(gnu emacs likes it, for example!). Post it. Again. After about the 15th time ISC is bound to notice. . . -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com