larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/28/91)
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes: >Does that mean that those off-the-shelf apps will *not* run under ESIX? Many are not supported under ESIX, however they usually work. Posters to the net have mentioned in previous articles problems running applications under ESIX that are not supported under ESIX. Sometimes the problems show up right after installation, other times the problems might not show up until you try to use a specific feature of the application. The bottom line is to purchase applications that are supported under your OS - and if the products aren't available specifically for your flavor of UNIX - then take into consideration the money saved by going with another vendor's release of UNIX might result in problems in the long run. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr28.125102.1676@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >The bottom line is to purchase applications that are supported under >your OS - and if the products aren't available specifically for your >flavor of UNIX - then take into consideration the money saved by >going with another vendor's release of UNIX might result in problems >in the long run. I agree with this. If the system is to be used in a commercial "for profit" environment, you're probably better off paying more up front, and getting a more widely supported product. In the case of a home system, though, where few people will install many commercial packages, the less expensive OS will probably be OK. -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) (04/29/91)
> >In article <1991Apr28.125102.1676@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >> >>The bottom line is to purchase applications that are supported under >>your OS - and if the products aren't available specifically for your >>flavor of UNIX - then take into consideration the money saved by >>going with another vendor's release of UNIX might result in problems >>in the long run. > I don't dispute that this might be sound advice in practice, but I don't think there should be any excuse for vendor specific 386 applications. Either the software developer or the OS vendor are not doing their job. What are all those ABIs for? By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications (WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix variants?
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/29/91)
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >>In article <1991Apr28.125102.1676@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >variants? Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive Unix - but not for ESIX. WP might run just fine under ESIX, but then it might not. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: > >>By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >>(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >>variants? > >Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. Is this for real or is just Interactive's marketing? They distribute Norton, right? Does the software use any ISC specific feature (file system, drivers) ? >Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >Unix - but not for ESIX. Now for the follow-up question. Why? How come a text-based application like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386 plataforms. How bad are things going to get when they come out with an X-Window version? You would also have software written to a specific X-Server? There are 6-7 vendors of 386/486 Unix out there. Unless off-the-shelf software can run unchanged across plataforms, it seems that, except for SCO and ISC, they would all have to close their doors. (And we would all be lining up to buy Microsoft's OS/?)
fangchin@elaine54.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr29.031654.17360@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >> >>>By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >>>(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >>>variants? >> >>Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. > >Is this for real or is just Interactive's marketing? They distribute >Norton, right? Does the software use any ISC specific feature (file >system, drivers) ? > >>Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >>Unix - but not for ESIX. > >Now for the follow-up question. Why? How come a text-based >application like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386 >plataforms. How bad are things going to get when they come out with >an X-Window version? You would also have software written to a >specific X-Server? > All are interesting discussions. All valid from one point of view or the other, so I would like to give my view as well: I know nothing about UNIX commerical software since I don't use/need them. But I think an inexpansive OS, as long as it's reasonably robust, is good for home systems. As a student, I can't afford any commerical software other than the OS. Below is how I get by for my basic needs: Word Processing -> Tex and LaTex from Prof. Knuth -> labrea.stanford.edu (should I call it text formatting to please purists? For scientific symbols, WP simply won't cut it! I graduated from MSDOS, it was a pain for me using WP to any thing with lots eqns. LaTax is much better) Text Editor -> FSF's emacs and Crisp (a Brief clone for UNIX, where I got it? Can't recall now) X windows viewing -> seetax -> contrib dir of export.lcs.mit.edu Spread Sheet -> sc. 6.14 and lately Oleo from FSF -> prep.ai.mit.edu Data Base -> Perl by Larry Wall + Jinx and cterm by Prof. Hank P. Penning -> prep.ai.mit.edu and sol.cs.ruu.nl Communication -> ckermit from watson.cc.columbia.edu and ECU3 from uunet.uu.net X server -> everyone now should be using Thomas Roell's X386 as an alternative to the vendor supplied stuff I guess. Drawing -> xpic and xfig. contributed xclients. kind of like MacDraw Scientific plotting -> gnuplot, what else. [Well, I am still having problems getting it to work on my ESIX box in X. But heck, I run it on Suns] too numerous places to mention Compilers -> gcc/g++/gdb from FSF -> prep.ai.mit.edu Matrix Manulipulations -> Class Matlab and f2c from research.att.com [I can't tell you where to get the former due to leagailty problem] Statistic Data Analysis -> stat by Gary Perlman [don't ask me how to get it] I don't have enough disk space for building the EZ integrated document preparation pkg from Andrew Tool Kit. But I use it on my school's Suns. It's nice too. with built-in spreadsheet/drawing tool/mailer/etc. It's rated as the best word processor for X in the FAQ of comp.windows.x newsgroup. For people out there with a monster hard disk and enough patience, this thing is available from prep.ai.mit.edu and you shouldn't need to pay a penny for it. For on line info, there are lots man programs available and it's fairly easy to hack up a shell script to do the same thing. For FSF's texinfo stuff, xinfo is almost a straightforward make in ESIX, work right out of box from prep.ai.mit.edu. Xman is easy to hack too. So I would say, for some people (myself included), after the price for an inexpansive OS, the rest is just some time/effort and Internet access to get the box useful. Whether my OS runs commerical software or not doesn't really bother me at all. (yup. I know, not everyone has internet access...) Hmm.. Now I need to learn more so when FSF OS is out, I can hack it and make it up and running. If that can be done, cost for an OS is nil too. Then Bye to all commerical 386 Unices. Long life free ware! Regards, Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.212531.14727@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: > >By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >variants? Larry was saying that most of them probably will run under systems on which they are not "officially" supported, but you may run into specific incompatibilities later. I did run into such a situation with ISC VP/ix on Esix -- Wordperfect 5.1 requires some special fenagaling to get it to work properly -- and then you do awayl with print spooling. -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.031654.17360@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >> >>>By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >>>(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >>>variants? >> >>Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. > >Is this for real or is just Interactive's marketing? They distribute >Norton, right? Does the software use any ISC specific feature (file >system, drivers) ? > Well, I for one wouldn't even consider trying to run something like Norton Utilities on a system which was not specifically supported by Norton. It does such specific things (such as dealing with disk sectors) that it could make a real mess of things in a hurry. -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. Norton is for ISC, AT&T, and SCO UNIX. It says so right on the box. It would probably run fine on ESIX if you used the S51K file system rather than FFS, or it might even work with FFS. I'm not brave enough to find out. :) >Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >Unix - but not for ESIX. WP might run just fine under ESIX, but then >it might not. WordPerfect is listed in the ESIX software compatibility list. ESIX has even released console driver patches specifically to support WordPerfect. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
tim@dell.co.uk (Tim Wright) (04/30/91)
In <1991Apr29.212706.17365@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >In article <1991Apr29.031654.17360@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >>In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>>ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >>> >>>>By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >>>>(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >>>>variants? >>> >>>Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive. >> >>Is this for real or is just Interactive's marketing? They distribute >>Norton, right? Does the software use any ISC specific feature (file >>system, drivers) ? >> >Well, I for one wouldn't even consider trying to run something like >Norton Utilities on a system which was not specifically supported by >Norton. It does such specific things (such as dealing with disk sectors) >that it could make a real mess of things in a hurry. Indeed, the norton utilities for UNIX have their own device driver(s) and are intimately linked to the ISC fast file system. Hence it will not run on non-ISC (derived) versions of UNIX. The biggest problem I have seen is with packages for SCO UNIX. They usually work *IF* you can persuade them to install. Not always easy since they sometimes check for such things as "The SCO internationalisation supplement" - hard to find on ISC !! It would be nice if software developers could use the generic sysv/386 stuff unless it really is vital to stray outside. Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Berkshire, UK, RG12 1RW. Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast - Red Dwarf
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.212531.14727@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications >(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under some 386 Unix >variants? On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. To my way of looking at things, this is a step backwards. You can't say "Well I need more power, let's put in a '486 box". This is the only package that I have seen that states is will run only a specified OS ONLY on a specified hardware that is supposed to be upwardly compatible. Anyone have the inside story on this. bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/01/91)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: >Norton is for ISC, AT&T, and SCO UNIX. It says so right on the box. >It would probably run fine on ESIX if you used the S51K file system >rather than FFS, or it might even work with FFS. I'm not brave enough >to find out. :) >>Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >>Unix - but not for ESIX. WP might run just fine under ESIX, but then >>it might not. >WordPerfect is listed in the ESIX software compatibility list. ESIX >has even released console driver patches specifically to support >WordPerfect. but WP under ESIX isn't supported by WP (so Word Perfect Unix technical support told me). They said I could try it - but if and when problems came up, I would be "one my own". WP support said something to the effect of "if we supported ESIX, we would say so in our documentation" -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.172118.11022@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >WP support said something to the effect of "if we supported ESIX, >we would say so in our documentation" That sounds like a mighty SNIPPY reply if you ask me! Geeesh, what a bunch of snobs! -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr29.212432.17198@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >I did run into such a situation with >ISC VP/ix on Esix -- Wordperfect 5.1 requires some special fenagaling >to get it to work properly -- and then you do awayl with print spooling. Is this an ESIX problem or a VP/ix problem? There were problems getting WP 5.1 working under VP/ix, even on ISC. You couldn't install it on the Z: drive, as I recall. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (05/02/91)
In article <DY=+D#=@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: > >Is this an ESIX problem or a VP/ix problem? There were problems getting >WP 5.1 working under VP/ix, even on ISC. You couldn't install it on >the Z: drive, as I recall. I'm not sure whether VP/ix or ESIX is at fault. I have WP installed on the Z: drive. It was *printing* that caused the headaches for me. -bill -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/03/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >I'm not sure whether VP/ix or ESIX is at fault. >I have WP installed on the Z: drive. It was *printing* that caused >the headaches for me. Did you try it on the C: drive? -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May02.173710.6752@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: > >>I have WP installed on the Z: drive. It was *printing* that caused >>the headaches for me. > >Did you try it on the C: drive? It's been a while ... I think I did install it on C:, but removed it because the C drive is such a space hog. -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (05/04/91)
In article <1991Apr30.135708.19899@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: > >On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But >the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. >So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. > >Anyone have the inside story on this. Could it have something to do with the built-in math co-processor on the 486 chip? -- bill@unixland.uucp The Think_Tank BBS & Public Access Unix ...!uunet!think!unixland!bill ..!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill 508-655-3848 (2400) 508-651-8723 (9600-HST) 508-651-8733 (9600-PEP-V32)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/04/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>>I have WP installed on the Z: drive. It was *printing* that caused >>>the headaches for me. >> >>Did you try it on the C: drive? >It's been a while ... I think I did install it on C:, but removed it because >the C drive is such a space hog. but it did work on the C drive? -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.213649.3513@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.135708.19899@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But >>the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. >>So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. >Could it have something to do with the built-in math co-processor on >the 486 chip? Well since the the '486 is upward compatible from the '386 Lotus would have to be doing something like reading the hardware directly. This is the only conclusion several of us came up with. But thats a no-no when doing Unix. I suspect some users are going to be upset if they try to do a hardware upgrade and find everything works except Lotus. Anyone else have any ideas? -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (05/06/91)
In article <1991Apr30.135708.19899@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But >the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. >So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. All that means is that they didn't run the entire test set, which is pretty large, on 486 systems. In fact, 1-2-3 for Unix works fine on 486 boxes. I have an EISA 486 running ISC 2.2, and Lotus loads up and runs perfectly well. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl Cheap oil is an oxymoron.
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May05.180556.9247@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.135708.19899@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But >>the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. >>So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. >All that means is that they didn't run the entire test set, which is pretty >large, on 486 systems. In fact, 1-2-3 for Unix works fine on 486 boxes. I >have an EISA 486 running ISC 2.2, and Lotus loads up and runs perfectly well. That is interesting. The reason I posted this was that there is nothing on the box that says it, but in the installation manual it specifically states it won't run on 80286 (as expected) or 80486 chips - which was unexpected. Typical software releases will say it runs on XXXXX, which means it is supported and runs there. But very few say it will NOT run on YYYY. Now - why do they put that in the installation manual? I am going to check this out, as the copy is a fresh eval from Lotus. Thanks for the info. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
tim@dell.co.uk (Tim Wright) (05/07/91)
In <1991May4.160323.18554@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >In article <1991May3.213649.3513@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>In article <1991Apr30.135708.19899@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>>On the Lotus-123 for Unix is says it will run under SCO Xenix too. But >>>the kicker is - it specifically states it will NOT run on '486 machines. >>>So they have done something to make it hardware dependant. >>Could it have something to do with the built-in math co-processor on >>the 486 chip? >Well since the the '486 is upward compatible from the '386 Lotus would have >to be doing something like reading the hardware directly. This is the >only conclusion several of us came up with. But thats a no-no when doing >Unix. I suspect some users are going to be upset if they try to do a >hardware upgrade and find everything works except Lotus. >Anyone else have any ideas? I flat do not believe that it won't run on a '486 under UNIX. The only time I've seen problems with code running on a '486 is when stupid programmers write self-modifying code and find that the bit they're trying to modify is now in the cache and hence doesn't get modified. Since UNIX executables have their "text" part shared and read-only, this can't happen. If anybody can come up with a plausible explanation for it not working under UNIX, I'd be interested to hear it !! :-) :-) Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Berkshire, UK, RG12 1RW. Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast - Red Dwarf