perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) (11/27/89)
I've seen mentioned a couple of times that AIX PS/2 is supposed to have JC.
We recently had a PC/RT for review, and that did not have JC. Is there a
difference in versions of AIX ( other than different CPUs ) ? I thought
that AIX was supposed to look alike on all platforms. Which versions and
platforms do have job control ?
Per
--
Per Andersson
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
perand@admin.kth.se, @tds.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
or perhaps {backbone}!sunic!ttds!perandron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) (11/27/89)
In article <2401@draken.nada.kth.se>, perand@nada.kth.se (Per An writes: > I've seen mentioned a couple of times that AIX PS/2 is supposed to have JC. > We recently had a PC/RT for review, and that did not have JC. Is there a > difference in versions of AIX ( other than different CPUs ) ? I thought > that AIX was supposed to look alike on all platforms. Which versions and > platforms do have job control ? Don't take my word for it, but as I understand it, AIX PS/2 has JC while AIX/RT does not. Something about AIX PS/2 being more or less BSD while AIX/RT being SysV2 plus 96% of BSD. Future versions are supposedly going to be similar across all platforms. Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + + outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org +
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/27/89)
In article <2401@draken.nada.kth.se> perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: >I've seen mentioned a couple of times that AIX PS/2 is supposed to have JC. If you mean BSD-style process control -- yes, PS/2 and 370 AIX have it. >We recently had a PC/RT for review, and that did not have JC. Which version of AIX was that RT running? I am certain that the older versions on AIX on RT did not have BSD process control. I don't know about the new RT AIX. >Is there a difference in versions of AIX ( other than different CPUs ) ? RT's AIX did not have any influences of Berkeley UNIX. AIX PS/2 (and 370) is 4.3 compatible and you can expect to find in it almost everything that makes 4.3 BSD such a pleasure to use. And because it's SVID compliant, it gives you everything you expect to find in sVr2 (sorry, no streams). >I thought that AIX was supposed to look alike on all platforms. Personally, I can't find a satisfactory explanation for IBM's desire to have PS/2 and 370 UNIX ports compatible with RT. It's like a tail wagging the dog -- RT enjoyed some of the worst sales IBM ever had and had some of the worst user community reception. Why should such a commercial failure determine the appearance of a perfectly sane operating system? -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
vlruo02@dutrun.UUCP (Ge van Geldorp) (11/27/89)
In article <22762@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Personally, I can't find a satisfactory explanation for IBM's desire to have >PS/2 and 370 UNIX ports compatible with RT. No, but it sure would be nice if the RT AIX looked like the PS/2 AIX. I have some experience with both and like the PS/2 version better. The only things I'm missing are NFS and the syslog daemon. Ge van Geldorp ge@dutlru2.tudelft.nl ...!uunet!hp4nl!dutlru2.tudelft.nl!ge
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/28/89)
In article <1004@dutrun.UUCP> ge@dutlru2.tudelft.nl (Ge van Geldorp) writes: >No, but it sure would be nice if the RT AIX looked like the PS/2 AIX. I >have some experience with both and like the PS/2 version better. The >only things I'm missing are NFS and the syslog daemon. NFS is available on AIX/370 (which is the TCF version of AIX for PS/2 and 370) and so is syslog daemon. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) (11/29/89)
In article <22762@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Which version of AIX was that RT running? I am certain that the older >versions on AIX on RT did not have BSD process control. I don't know about >the new RT AIX. In fact, no AIX for the RT (to date) has job control. > >RT's AIX did not have any influences of Berkeley UNIX. AIX PS/2 (and 370) is Eh? Well, other than sockets, vi, csh (no job control).... Actually, there are enough Berkeleyisms in AIX for the RT that folks used to bsd systems are only moderately uncomfortable. >-- RT enjoyed some of the worst sales IBM ever had and had some of the worst >user community reception. Why should such a commercial failure determine the >appearance of a perfectly sane operating system? >-- Can you say "customer base"? I knew you could. Even if there's not many of them, it's not a good thing to ignore existing customers. Mike Jones | When everything has been seen to work, all AIX Kernel Development | integrated, you have four more months work to do. Kingston, NY | - Charles Portman, ICL @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com!mjones
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/29/89)
In article <1012@awdprime.UUCP> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes: [AIX RT being 4.3-like] >Eh? Well, other than sockets, vi, csh (no job control).... Actually, there >are enough Berkeleyisms in AIX for the RT that folks used to bsd systems >are only moderately uncomfortable. There were sockets and csh in XENIX SysV for 286 as well, that did not make it BSD-like. vi ports run under MSDOS. csh is available in almost all SysV ports sold. I appreciate the valiant effort of you, Kingston folk, to defend RT, but let's be real. There is nothing about AIX RT that makes it any more BSD-friendly than the last "pure" SysV machine I used, Encore Multimax. >>-- RT enjoyed some of the worst sales IBM ever had and had some of the worst >>user community reception. Why should such a commercial failure determine the >>appearance of a perfectly sane operating system? >Can you say "customer base"? I knew you could. Even if there's not many >of them, it's not a good thing to ignore existing customers. I don't buy that reasoning. There is no point in forcing an RT look on the family of products that are targeted for a very large user community just because a few governmental agencies had bought a few RT AIX machines (most RT boxes I have seen were ACIS 4.3 BSD boxes running X). In fact, that's the same reasoning that keeps 370 machines "compatible" with 360 and earlier systems (to what end? It would have been cheaper, in the long run, to rewrite the software!) and is responsible for 8086 being such a dog in the name of 8080 and CP/M compatibility (386 is what 8086 was supposed to be!). -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
markw@airgun.wg.waii.com (Mark Whetzel) (11/29/89)
Aix 2.2.1 on the IBM RT may be missing job control, but IMHO it has just enough BSD to allow most programs that had starts in BSD to compile with MINOR changes, mostly to include locations. So far after porting about 50 different X programs and other utilities, I have had very little problem getting most programs to run and operate successfully. BTW: NFS and syslog are available for AIX 2.2.1 as well, I am running it as we speak. As a matter of fact, one of our RT's is the file server for 3 sparc stations, and holds the binary programs and source tree for MOTIF compiled from the sparcstation 1's! The RT's are also serving as print servers for all of the sparcstations! So far I have found AIX easier to use and better documented than SUNOS for the Sparcstations! Markw -- Mark Whetzel My comments are my own, not my company's. Western Geophysical - A division of Western Atlas International, A Litton/Dresser Company DOMAIN addr: markw@airgun.wg.waii.com UUNET address: uunet!airgun!markw
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (11/30/89)
In article <22861@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >There were sockets and csh in XENIX SysV for 286 as well, that did not make >it BSD-like. XENIX 286 never had sockets. Excelan sold a TCP/IP hardware/software package which had a rough emulation of the 4.1a BSD socket implementation. But it certainly wasn't a general facility. "Feeling 4BSD" means (as a minimum): long file names, symlinks, and job control, all of which RT 2.2.1 lack and which AIX PS/2 has. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (11/30/89)
In article <754@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) wrote: >"Feeling 4BSD" means (as a minimum): long file names, symlinks, and job >control, all of which RT 2.2.1 lack and which AIX PS/2 has. AIX 2.2.1 has symbolic links. The Grand Unified AIX will presumably have all three. Oleg Kiselev seems to be complaining about something else, that the AIX-PS/2 user interface is different from the 4.3 BSD user interface. This is a revival of the SysV vs. BSD religious controversy under a different name, and is not worth discussing unless he gets down to specifics. Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 karish@forel.stanford.edu
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/30/89)
In article <7106@portia.Stanford.EDU> karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >Oleg Kiselev seems to be complaining about something else, that the >AIX-PS/2 user interface is different from the 4.3 BSD user interface. You misunderstood. I commented on AIX PS/2 being very much BSD-like both on the user interface level and on the library services level and on the system call level (unless POSIX compliance required a change). RT AIX which I had used did not offer the BSD feel at least on the user level. I consider BSD feel to be long file names, symlinks (Steve Dyer mentioned these), job control (^Z suspend character, and background/foreground operations in C shell), BSD behaviour of tools (ps displaying %memory, %cpu and virtual space usage for a process, for instance), dbx, ls displaying multiple columns by default (without the need for -C flag which will screw you when you try to pipe ls output to a filter -- I know, it's a minor, insignificant nuisance, but it bugs me!), etc. ALL of these exist in AIX PS/2 and AIX 370. Most (if not all) of these are absent from RT AIX. That's all I was saying. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) (11/30/89)
Article <754@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> by dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) says: |"Feeling 4BSD" means (as a minimum): long file names, symlinks, and job |control, all of which RT 2.2.1 lack ... No, AIX 2.2.1 on the RT does have symlinks (and NFS) -- Bjorn Engsig, Domain: bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com Path: uunet!mcsun!orcenl!bengsig
karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (12/01/89)
In article <22902@gryphon.COM> oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) wrote: >In article <7106@portia.Stanford.EDU> karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >>Oleg Kiselev seems to be complaining about something else, that the >>AIX-PS/2 user interface is different from the 4.3 BSD user interface. > >You misunderstood. I commented on AIX PS/2 being very much BSD-like both on >the user interface level and on the library services level and on the system >call level (unless POSIX compliance required a change). RT AIX which I had >used did not offer the BSD feel at least on the user level. This isn't what you said the other day. You said that AIX-PS/2 was becomming more RT-like, and that you didn't like it. POSIX 1003.1 compliance involves supporting a BSD-like signalling mechanism, a SysV-like terminal IO subsystem, and a number of special-purpose functions instead of ioctls with varying numbers and types of arguments, which were difficult or impossible to rationalize with ANSI C. Changes for POSIX 1003.2 compilance will involve modifications of the user interface that will start the preference wars all over again. Great fun coming up. *** RT-AIX has become more BSD-like in the last few releases. You might try out a 2.2.1 machine before you make any more broad comparisons. >I consider BSD feel to be long file names, symlinks (Steve Dyer mentioned >these), job control (^Z suspend character, and background/foreground >operations in C shell), BSD behaviour of tools (ps displaying %memory, %cpu >and virtual space usage for a process, for instance), dbx, ls displaying >multiple columns by default (without the need for -C flag which will screw >you when you try to pipe ls output to a filter -- I know, it's a minor, >insignificant nuisance, but it bugs me!), etc. > >ALL of these exist in AIX PS/2 and AIX 370. Most (if not all) of these are >absent from RT AIX. That's all I was saying. AIX is intended to be sold both to the constituency you have in mind (mostly universities, if almost all the RTs you've seen run ACIS) and to non-engineering businesses where System 5 and X/Open compatibility are required. A BSD look and feel is not the only priority. AIX-RT has dbx and symbolic links. Some utilities support both SysV and BSD functionality ('echo' honors both '-n' and '\c', though the manual page doesn't say so; 'df -k' gives BSD-style output). AIX-RT symbolic links to directories have restrictions (to prevent tree traversal loops) that make them work differently from BSD symlinks. AIX-RT will become more BSD-like in the near future. It will have job control, or IBM will not be able to fulfill government contracts that require FIPS 151-1 conformance. Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 karish@forel.stanford.edu
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (12/02/89)
In article <7145@portia.Stanford.EDU> karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes: >>You misunderstood. I commented on AIX PS/2 being very much BSD-like both on >>the user interface level and on the library services level and on the system >>call level (unless POSIX compliance required a change). RT AIX which I had >>used did not offer the BSD feel at least on the user level. >This isn't what you said the other day. You said that AIX-PS/2 was becomming >more RT-like, and that you didn't like it. AIX-PS/2 has been made to behave like RT AIX in many, many ways. I disagree with the design standards and the very concept of a number of RT tools and I am not thrilled about PS/2 AIX being made compatible with RT on that level. I do not recall if this was even mentioned in the same article, but it definitely was not mentioned in the same thought-thread, which dealt with RT's and PS2's BSD-feel as is exemplified by process/job control. >POSIX 1003.1 compliance involves supporting a BSD-like signalling >mechanism, a SysV-like terminal IO subsystem, and a number of >special-purpose functions instead of ioctls with varying numbers and >types of arguments, which were difficult or impossible to rationalize >with ANSI C. That's been done in AIX/370. The compilers (386 and 370) support ANSI C, but the system was written in the "standard" K&R C, just like sVr2 and BSD 4.3. -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
drake@ibmarc.uucp (Sam Drake) (12/08/89)
In article <754@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >"Feeling 4BSD" means (as a minimum): long file names, symlinks, and job >control, all of which RT 2.2.1 lack and which AIX PS/2 has. AIX/RT 2.2.1 *does* have symbolic links.... Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center