shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (05/24/90)
In article <7820@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> todd@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes: >In any case, I'm sitting dead in the water with a 33MHz Everex Step 386/33 >until I get 2.2 (2.0.2 won't work with the Everex Step 386/33). In the >meantime, does anyone actually have 2.2? Does it come with man pages, job >control, and other goodies we've been waiting for? I received a flyer recently that outlined the upgrade for ISC UNIX and its various components. Looking *only* at the basic OS itself, changes include: - New translatable, colorful (sic) installation procedures - Support for POSIX-compliant appplications and utilities - Enhanced documentation, including on-line manual pages - Improved internationalization support - New drivers and improvements to existing drivers - New sendmail with configuration menus - Support for optional C2 Security and Norton Utilities packages - Enhanced user class upgrade system (whatever that means) There is no mention of job control, and I don't know what "other goodies" you've been waiting for. Since you already have 2.0.2, you should certainly consider upgrading through ISC distribution in Hollis, NH rather than a new purchase.
fischer@utower.gopas.sub.org (Axel Fischer) (05/25/90)
brando@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu writes: >As far as the pricing goes, it makes alot of sense for those would-be >buyers of Interactive 386, to buy the current version 2.0.2 at the >current prices, since the upgrade to 2.2 is free.... Are you kidding ? OS Uodate from 2.02 to 2.2 is $75 and Devpacket 2.0.0 to 2.2 ist $250 here in Germany. -Axel -- fischer@utower.gopas.sub.org / fischer@db0tui6.BITNET / fischer@tmpmbx.UUCP That is not dead, which can eternal lie Yet with strange aeons, even death may die.
rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) (05/26/90)
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >In article <7820@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> todd@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes: >>meantime, does anyone actually have 2.2? Does it come with man pages, job >>control, and other goodies we've been waiting for? >I received a flyer recently that outlined the upgrade for ISC UNIX and >its various components. Looking *only* at the basic OS itself, changes include: [ partial description of package deleted ] >There is no mention of job control, and I don't know what "other goodies" >you've been waiting for. Ray, you must not have received the same flier that the rest of us did. Mine said JOB CONTROL for POSIX and non-POSIX applications under CSH. It also said that it comes with online manual entries, plus lots more. -- Buster Irby buster!rli
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (05/26/90)
In article <7820@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> todd@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Todd Ogasawara) writes: >called 386/ix until rev 2.0.2) shipped on schedule last week. However, >when I called my distributer (an authorized Interactive dealer), I was told >that they would not receive a shipment until May 28 (next week Monday). ISC misstated the truth :-). We sell it, and we have been pushed back a week or so as well. >In any case, I'm sitting dead in the water with a 33MHz Everex Step 386/33 >until I get 2.2 (2.0.2 won't work with the Everex Step 386/33). In the >meantime, does anyone actually have 2.2? Does it come with man pages, job >control, and other goodies we've been waiting for? Yes it does. Yes, the cost is higher. It is also (IMHO) worth the extra outlay. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (05/27/90)
In article <1990May26.011503.24100@buster.irby.com> rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) writes: >Mine said JOB CONTROL for POSIX and non-POSIX applications under CSH. It just occurred to me that this will cause a bit of problem for people using the old Microport KSH under 386/ix. I believe job control capability in the KSH has to be enabled at compile time. Is Interactive including the ksh in the new release or we have to wait for SysV 4.0 ?
gary@mic.UUCP (Gary Lewin) (05/27/90)
In article <1990May26.020525.15839@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Yes, the cost is higher. It is also (IMHO) worth the extra outlay. The cost is not much higher, depending on the package used for comparison. For instance, Workstation Developer unlimited 2.2 costs $7.00 more than the 2.02 version (wholesale). List prices are exactly the same. Gary Lewin gary@mic.lonestar.org
capslock@wet.UUCP (Allen Crider) (05/30/90)
In article <40800013@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu> brando@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu writes: > > >As far as the pricing goes, it makes alot of sense for those would-be >buyers of Interactive 386, to buy the current version 2.0.2 at the >current prices, since the upgrade to 2.2 is free.... > Amazing to see Interactive charge such prices for their upgrade. SystemV.4 is overdue now--how are they going to compete when it finally hits the streets? I'd advise anyone who can stand the wait to wait for V.4. AT&T charges lower license fees than for V.3. MAYBE these lower license fees will actually get passed on to us dummies!
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/31/90)
capslock@wet.UUCP (Allen Crider) writes: > Amazing to see Interactive charge such prices for their upgrade... As for upgrade prices...without analyzing the costs and benefits (and certainly not acting as a spokesman for Interactive!), I can note that the upgrades add online manual pages (which involves a licensing issue) and the new manuals for the heavily-used stuff are looseleaf. There's more to it than that, but I'll leave it to someone *not* connected with ISC to make some detailed comparisons. >...SystemV.4 is overdue now--how are they going to compete when it > finally hits the streets?... Depends on when it hits the streets and what it looks like when it gets there, doesn't it?!? 2.2 is a release for now--*right* now, today, when you've got a machine sitting there and you need an OS. I haven't seen a firm release date for V.4 from anyone. Everybody's looking at it and working hard on it, but that's nowhere near to promising the ship date. I can suggest how someone with a V.3 product will compete when V.4 comes out: They'll be selling an established, stable release against a new product. They may also be selling a system which, although it has fewer features, also uses fewer machine resources. Sure, V.3 will go away eventually, but it's not going to happen in 3Q90! There are people who need a working system today, not a promise. As for what V.4 offers: Yes, there are lots of new features (and old features the BSD world has that we want...there are days I'd kill for long file names). Are those features free? Of course not. What are the tradeoffs? Are they worthwhile for everybody? Perhaps not. Now, I'm out on a limb here, but I can see big users (government, research, industry) wanting V.4 right away, but small users (home machines, little companies) holding off for a bit. Maybe not; maybe the incremental cost isn't that much...but it's something to think about. > I'd advise anyone who can stand the wait to wait for V.4... How long are you advising them to wait? If somebody's got a plan for the distant future (let's say mid-91 or beyond), he can afford the gamble of waiting. If he's looking at early 91, there will probably be V.4's out there, but how stable will they be? If he's looking at late 90, it might work out but *I* wouldn't write a business plan based on it. And, mind you, none of this is based on any real knowledge of how V.4 is coming along. I hear bits of stuff; I read the trade press carefully... but most of what I'm saying is simple observation: You don't assume a system is "just around the corner" until you start hearing about major beta shipments to happy people. In short, if you must have the two-way sneeze-through wind vents, star- studded mud guards, edible sponge steering column, and chrome fender dents, AND you can afford to wait some amount of time, not yet determined but definitely measured in months, wait for V.4. If you need a stable OS today, but without some of the stuff you'd like, go with V.3. (That advice has nothing much to do with ISC's systems...it could just as well be said about SCO, ESIX, etc.) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Simpler is better.
rli@buster.irby.com (Buster Irby) (05/31/90)
capslock@wet.UUCP (Allen Crider) writes: >Amazing to see Interactive charge such prices for their upgrade. SystemV.4 >is overdue now--how are they going to compete when it finally hits the streets? > I'd advise anyone who can stand the wait to wait for V.4. AT&T charges >lower license fees than for V.3. MAYBE these lower license fees will actually >get passed on to us dummies! I would not recommend any such thing to anyone. The information I have says that SysV.4.0 is a SCHEDULE DRIVEN RELEASE of the product. To me that means bugs, and possibly lots of them. Only those people who must start porting their products to V.4 should even attempt to use this first release! Also, according to AT&T, your plain vanilla V.3 product will run slower in V.4 that it did under V.3. I have been on the leading edge of technology many times and burned too many times as a result. I would suggest that most people want to stick with V.3 until V.4.2 or later is released! -- Buster Irby buster!rli
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (06/01/90)
In article <1242@wet.UUCP> capslock@wet.UUCP (Allen Crider) writes: >Amazing to see Interactive charge such prices for their upgrade. SystemV.4 >is overdue now--how are they going to compete when it finally hits the streets? > I'd advise anyone who can stand the wait to wait for V.4. AT&T charges >lower license fees than for V.3. MAYBE these lower license fees will actually >get passed on to us dummies! If System V.4 is overdue from Interactive, it's overdue from just about everyone. After all, how many deliverable implementations have you seen? As to the "wait for it" argument, that all depends on whether what you need requires functionality only available under V.4. The latter will grow substantially in both memory and disk resource requirements according to all I've read - enough so that any modest cost savings resulting from lower license fees will more than be eaten up by extra resource costs.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (06/04/90)
In article <1990May31.051750.27155@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: | >...SystemV.4 is overdue now--how are they going to compete when it | > finally hits the streets?... | | Depends on when it hits the streets and what it looks like when it gets | there, doesn't it?!? 2.2 is a release for now--*right* now, today, when | you've got a machine sitting there and you need an OS. I haven't seen a | firm release date for V.4 from anyone. Everybody's looking at it and | working hard on it, but that's nowhere near to promising the ship date. I believe that there is some kind of arrangement by which AT&T will say when it can be released, although that's only what I hear from vendors. There are at least two vendors with beta versions out which I would run on a production machine, although perhaps not the most critical systems, obviously. | | As for what V.4 offers: Yes, there are lots of new features (and old | features the BSD world has that we want...there are days I'd kill for long | file names). Are those features free? Of course not. What are the | tradeoffs? Are they worthwhile for everybody? Perhaps not. Now, I'm out I want symbolic links, so I can put /usr/lib/news and /usr/spool/news in one filesystem by itself. Long filenames are useful if you have 400+ BSD machine on your ethernet (I do at work) and want to use ftp with 'mget' safely. I have been surprised at the good performance of the filesystem on V.4 versions, although I can't say who's or quote number except to the vendors, obviously. | | > I'd advise anyone who can stand the wait to wait for V.4... | | How long are you advising them to wait? If somebody's got a plan for the | distant future (let's say mid-91 or beyond), he can afford the gamble of | waiting. If he's looking at early 91, there will probably be V.4's out | there, but how stable will they be? If he's looking at late 90, it might | work out but *I* wouldn't write a business plan based on it. I wouldn't bet a career on it by writing a business plan, but I certainly would wager a hundred bucks or so on delivery in third quarter. I think you're right, though, even without any more bugs than the usual release, the system administration is not just like V.3, or Xenix, or anything else. In some cases you can run directly from the admin tools and be happy, while some things will leave you reading manuals for a bit. | | In short, if you must have the two-way sneeze-through wind vents, star- | studded mud guards, edible sponge steering column, and chrome fender dents, | AND you can afford to wait some amount of time, not yet determined but | definitely measured in months, wait for V.4. If you need a stable OS | today, but without some of the stuff you'd like, go with V.3. (That | advice has nothing much to do with ISC's systems...it could just as well | be said about SCO, ESIX, etc.) Good advice. I think the timeframe might be very soon, but if you don't need the features you might well wait for six months or so. If you evaluate o/s versions, grab V.4 when you can, it's going to be very important in the long run. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/05/90)
In article <1067@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > I want symbolic links, so I can put /usr/lib/news and /usr/spool/news > in one filesystem by itself. It's dead-easy to do this anyway. I have /work1/news/lib and /work1/news/spool. Both B and C news let you put your lib and spool directories *anywhere*. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (06/06/90)
In article <+CX3CVG@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | In article <1067@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: | > I want symbolic links, so I can put /usr/lib/news and /usr/spool/news | > in one filesystem by itself. | | It's dead-easy to do this anyway. I have /work1/news/lib and | /work1/news/spool. Both B and C news let you put your lib and spool | directories *anywhere*. Not what I said... I don't want to run my directories elsewhere and hack all the news software plus all the utilities I have inhereted and written, etc. I want to use standard names for things but have them elsewhere. This works in V.4. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/06/90)
In article <1067@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: | I want symbolic links, so I can put /usr/lib/news and /usr/spool/news | in one filesystem by itself. In article <+CX3CVG@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > It's dead-easy to do this anyway. I have /work1/news/lib and > /work1/news/spool. Both B and C news let you put your lib and spool > directories *anywhere*. In article <1094@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: | Not what I said... I don't want to run my directories elsewhere and | hack all the news software plus all the utilities I have inhereted and | written, etc. It doesn't require "hacking". Every program I've ever seen that does anything with news has a pretty complete set of #defines and config questions for this purpose. I've never had to edit one ".c" file to get a program to deal with my directory structure. Not that symbolic links aren't incredibly useful, but they're not as vital as everyone seems to think. And since V.4 is going to be a while yet, at least as a stable system, it's worth-while going to a bit of effort to do without. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (06/06/90)
In article <+CX3CVG@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1067@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > > I want symbolic links, so I can put /usr/lib/news and /usr/spool/news > > in one filesystem by itself. > It's dead-easy to do this anyway. I have /work1/news/lib and > /work1/news/spool. Both B and C news let you put your lib and spool > directories *anywhere*. It's also possible to create a filesystem named news, containing a lib and spool directory, and mount it under /usr. While /usr/news/spool and /usr/news/lib aren't exactly conventional pathnames, it keeps news files together and linkable, while allowing as much spooldir as you care to allocate. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "I think, therefore, !PANIC! illegal protected mode access attempt Memory fault: core dumped