bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) (10/05/89)
The entry in my ~/newsgroups file for comp.unix.i386 says
"comp.unix.i386 Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-based boxes."
yet the majority of articles refer to ISC UNIX. In fact, one guy
told me the i386 nomer referred specifically to Interactive's
product.
Am I wrong, along with my newsgroups file, or is there simply
no interest in any other OS running on Intel 80386 boxes in this
newsgroup?
--
Bote
Old & Improved path!: uunet!comsea!csense!bote
New & Improved path!: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!botedmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (10/05/89)
In article <385@csense.UUCP>, bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: > > Am I wrong, along with my newsgroups file, or is there simply > no interest in any other OS [ besides Interactive's ] running > on Intel 80386 boxes in this newsgroup? Maybe the other ones simply work as advertised, so nobody has anything to say about them? :-) Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/06/89)
In article <385@csense.UUCP>, bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: > yet the majority of articles refer to ISC UNIX. In fact, one guy > told me the i386 nomer referred specifically to Interactive's > product. Well, that guy is wrong. I proposed this newsgroup and ran the vote, and I explicitly included all intel-80386 versions of UNIX in the charter. Not only are Bell Tech/ENIX/SCO/whatever other System-V versions welcomed, but so is Sun's 386i. I'm using iNTeL/Bell Tech System V/386 here. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Seems to me that posting an entire RFC in PostScript is like posting a 'U` Sun-3 binary to comp.sources.unix." -- sgrimm@sun.com (Steven Grimm)
rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (10/06/89)
bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes about the purpose of this newsgroup...ostensibly for "Versions of Unix running on Intel 80386-based boxes" yet > ...the majority of articles refer to ISC UNIX. In fact, one guy > told me the i386 nomer referred specifically to Interactive's > product. First, no, i386 does not refer to Interactive's product. Our version is called 386/ix; that's a trademark of Interactive Systems Corporation. The "i" in the newsgroup name is for "intel". Interactive's 386/ix is related to other 386-based AT&T System V.3.2 UNIX systems in that they all started from the same code base. I suspect there's more Interactive chat because our technical staff is active here. > Am I wrong, along with my newsgroups file, or is there simply > no interest in any other OS running on Intel 80386 boxes in this > newsgroup? There will be discussions of AIX for the 386-based PS/2's (along with a different AIX for the RT PC and a promised AIX for the 370:-) in comp.unix.aix. There is some discussion of SCO's Xenix in comp.unix.xenix. The discussion about SCO tends to split, although I think we may see more of them here now that Sys V UNIX and Xenix characteristics have been merged (in V.3.2). Also, Dan Mocsny wrote: > Maybe the other ones simply work as advertised, so nobody has anything > to say about them? :-) We'll get you for that, Dan! Quick, everybody from *.isc.com over to rec.bicycles! Start posting pro-automobile articles...make them real flames, and put "Followup-To: rec.auto"! Seriously, I think that one of the things that makes for more ISC-related discussion is that, unlike AT&T or IBM, we don't sell hardware. That probably results in more questions about "how do I make this magic card work?" or "will this card work?" AT&T, for example, sells certain hard- ware...they *must* focus on that hardware. (It's a disaster if their software doesn't work with their hardware; it's a lot less serious if it doesn't work with some random piece from another mfgr.) We don't have the luxury of saying, "well, it works with ISC hardware" because there isn't any. This isn't to say anything negative about AT&T; their situation is just less required to be open. (I also like to think it's because we've got more customers doing more interesting and different things.:-) -- +---------+ Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com ico!rcd (303)449-2870 | In this | 4th annual MadHatterDay [10/6/89]: | style | A Thousand Points of Madness |__10/6___|
paradis@encore.Encore.COM (Jim Paradis) (10/11/89)
In article <385@csense.UUCP> bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: >Am I wrong, along with my newsgroups file, or is there simply >no interest in any other OS running on Intel 80386 boxes in this >newsgroup? Well I, for one, have been intrigued by the ENIX ads that I've been seeing lately, and I tuned into here figuring that people would have SOMETHING to say about it. So, before I drop $$$ on a 386 motherboard upgrade and unix, does anyone out there have any experiences (good, bad, || indifferent) with ENIX? Jim Paradis paradis@encore.com 508-460-0500 "Give that HORSIE some SUGAR CUBES!!!"
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (10/11/89)
In article <16165@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>, rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes: > Also, Dan Mocsny wrote: > > > Maybe the other ones simply work as advertised, so nobody has anything > > to say about them? :-) > > We'll get you for that, Dan! Quick, everybody from *.isc.com over to > rec.bicycles! Start posting pro-automobile articles...make them real > flames, and put "Followup-To: rec.auto"! OK, I'm ready this time. I've been refining my arguments, and I'm much more used to being flamed now. C'mon, Gaswasters! Let's see what you can do! :-) > Seriously, I think that one of the things that makes for more ISC-related > discussion is that, unlike AT&T or IBM, we don't sell hardware. That > probably results in more questions about "how do I make this magic card > work?" or "will this card work?" Also, I seem to have a magnetic attraction for computer trouble. Things happen to me that just don't happen to other people. Like my local hardware vendor who has been helping get 386/ix running says: "Believe me, Dan, it's not really as hard as this!" Maybe I should work for ISC quality control? But I do have to believe that the entire computer industry needs to beef up its inter-vendor communication. Vendors must never forget that success is giving value to the customer, not just dumping crates on a loading dock. If a board manufacturer wants to sell into a market, they should insure that their boards are going to work in that market. If an OS vendor is selling into a market, they should insure that they support the hardware that exists in that market. If they don't support everything, then they should make perfectly clear what they do support *before* the customer buys. In the computer industry no single vendor supplies all of the value of its product. Hardware is only valuable because it runs software, add-in boards both get value from an existing bus and add value to it, and so on. To a very large extent, the value a vendor adds is not just from the technical excellence of its product, but also from the effort the vendor has put into working out the details with other vendors so the customer does not have to. Now historically, in a market economy vendors view themselves as competing with each other on the basis of how their products "perform." They usually express "performance" with some raw measure that may have little or no relation to how the customer perceives value. For many customers, the only valid benchmark is what I call "Loading Dock Time," that is the time that elapses between the box landing on the loading dock and useful work finally coming out of it. The traditional measure of "performance" has something to do with this, but much, much more is involved. A box, an OS, a board, or an application that gets most of its value from an existing market must work in that market. If the vendor cannot cope with testing the astronomical number of product combinations users are likely to get into, then all the vendors must commit part of their resources toward getting together and reducing the chaos they have created. If they do this, they will give more value to the customers, who will then in turn have more wealth to spend with the vendors. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu