chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/05/90)
...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and VP/ix, which do you prefer? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (09/06/90)
In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
=So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and
=VP/ix, which do you prefer?
A related question: can the DOS/Merge that was purchasable with
Microport 386 3.0e be used with any other UNIX (specifically, AT&T
SV/386 R3.2.2)?
Pete
--
Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (09/07/90)
In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." > >So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and >VP/ix, which do you prefer? >-- My preference is for Merge386 as implemented under SCO ODT. It is a nice piece of work. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (09/07/90)
In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > ...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." You/we will have a tough time fighting those who want to talk about running UNIX like stuff on MS-DOS. That's what I honestly thought this group was about until I saw your message. No, I didn't pay any attention to the great renaming, mostly because it was all rehash to me, and I didn't/don't really care how it comes out in the end. > So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and > VP/ix, which do you prefer? VP/ix. As far as I'm concerned, I consider Merge to be a brain- damaged implementation of what it is supposed to be, seemingly done by a bunch of machine level programmers who know little of the UNIX philosophy of kernel design. (Though I wouldn't want to claim that the bloating VP/ix causes in the kernel is a "good thing" either.) VP/ix works for me, and I use it as little as possible. (We don't currently have space for a version of UNIX TeX, along with the already existing copy of MS-DOS TeX, which we would have to keep for a transition period.) (I use TeX as little as possible too! :-) -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3-TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA
dmason@digi.lonestar.org (David Mason) (09/08/90)
In article <5680@seac.UUCP> wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) writes: >In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." >> >>So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and >>VP/ix, which do you prefer? >>-- >My preference is for Merge386 as implemented under SCO ODT. It is a >nice piece of work. > >-- >Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. > ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain The $64 question: why? I have not used ODT, but I have seen some demos and it looks pretty nice all around. I'm glad to see that Merge is popular, since integration with DOS would be one of my key factors in picking a PC UNIX, but I'm sure everybody out here in netland would like to see the gory details. A related question would be, if you dont need everything that ODT has, would it be better/cheaper to get ESIX and VP/ix? Will Merge work with ESIX? Enquiring minds want to know... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Mason Party on, dudes! DSC Communications M/S 121 1000 Coit Rd, Plano TX 75075 The opinions expressed herein are INET: dmason@digi.lonestar.org not necessarily mine or those of UUCP: ...!texsun!digi!dmason my employer. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/08/90)
I'll take merge over VPix any time. It's much better integrated with UNIX and easier to install and administer. Putting all that hackery in the kernel doesn't jibe with my conception of "understanding UNIX". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (09/10/90)
In article <953@digi.lonestar.org> dmason@digi.lonestar.org (David Mason) writes: >In article <5680@seac.UUCP> wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) writes: >>In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>>...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." >>> >>>So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and >>>VP/ix, which do you prefer? >>>-- >>My preference is for Merge386 as implemented under SCO ODT. It is a >>nice piece of work. >> > >The $64 question: why? > Well, since I'm not interesting in inventing reasons, trying asking some questions. One's preference is not necessarily another's. As I have had a distinct dislike for DOS and pretty much stopped using it around the time DOS 2.1 was issued, the uses of the product with which we have been associated don't involve the "ins and outs", "extenders and benders", "this tweak and that tweak", and "extended this and expanded that" which seem to make up the vocabulary of the DOS world. Principally, it serves the intererst of clients whom wish to run Quarrto, and Rbase, etc., as well as some proprietary software that is being replaced with UNIX versions as quickly as we can port/rewrite them. It handles VGA, modems, direct printing, wyse terminals, and you can even add a few megs above 640K. Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++ work smoothly. DOS progams compiled with the "messy"soft compiler and linked with the PC Interface library access UNIX like UNIX (best feature from my point of view although I could do without the compiler but then again "messy"soft might actually come out with a compiler that does one thing well rather than "2000" things badly). Dos programs can be executed from the unix command line, or within a VP/ix like environment. Pseudo-floppies, pseudo-disk are easily defined and used. Has excellent mouse drivers which do not require one to install the manufactures DOS drivers. The VGA image is the standard IBM image. > >I have not used ODT, but I have seen some demos >and it looks pretty nice all around. I'm glad to see that Merge is >popular, since integration with DOS would be one of my key factors in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Real wrong choices of words. Real hard not to flame. :-) ODT-DOS is only a mere process under ODT. And I think is would be really nice if this group could get across to people this small fact. Warning! If you want to turn your UNIX machine into a DOS machine, you'll pay the price in more ways than you can imagine. If you understand "standard DOS" as far as one can speak of a standard DOS, then you will understand the the functionality of ODT-DOS under ODT. First, one can ask oneself the question "What does UNIX do with the hardware BIOS when it boots up?" Being able to answer that question will get one around wondering what DOS software is appropriate --- most certainly not all that software out there that bends itself out of shape to get around DOS. Secondly, one might consider asking onesself the question "How would I write a DOS emulator that would execute in a multi-programming environment without having to take over the hardware with is being used by other processes and which pays attention to questions of security, etc., and provide such services as running different dos sessions on the multiscreens and switching a vga and a mouse from session to session? >picking a PC UNIX, but I'm sure everybody out here in netland would >like to see the gory details. > UNIX is UNIX, and I happen to be one of those people whom grind their teeth at even the mere existence of DOS. But then again clients are clients, and the ODT-DOS implementation is highly functional. What gore one might find will more than likely be of one's own making. But then, again, I'm sure that the whines and whimpers that the ODT-DOS is this and that the ODT-DOS is that will fill this group in the months to come will demonstrate this time and time again. > >A related question would be, if you dont need everything that ODT has, >would it be better/cheaper to get ESIX and VP/ix? Will Merge work with >ESIX? Enquiring minds want to know... > One of the nice features of ODT, my mind does not have to deal with silly questions like "Will it work with x, y, or z?" ODT is a unified product of which Merge386 forms the bases for ODT-DOS. I don't have an inquisitive mind, I would rather be developing applications than trying to figure out if x worked with y or z. And, I would much rather work with a product that is integrated --- just don't have to put up with out-of-sync updates, etc. And, most importantly, clients do not have to put up with out-of-sync updates -- only bugs. In short, its your quarter, or whatever. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
dmason@digi.lonestar.org (David Mason) (09/12/90)
In article <5683@seac.UUCP> wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) writes: >In article <953@digi.lonestar.org> dmason@digi.lonestar.org (David Mason) writes: >>In article <5680@seac.UUCP> wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) writes: >>>In article <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>>>...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." >>>> >>>>So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and >>>>VP/ix, which do you prefer? >>>>-- >>>My preference is for Merge386 as implemented under SCO ODT. It is a >>>nice piece of work. >>> >> >>The $64 question: why? [stuff deleted] >>I have not used ODT, but I have seen some demos >>and it looks pretty nice all around. I'm glad to see that Merge is >>popular, since integration with DOS would be one of my key factors in > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Real wrong choices of words. Real hard not to flame. :-) ODT-DOS is only >a mere process under ODT. And I think is would be really nice if this >group could get across to people this small fact. Does answering a simple question require a flame? If I had ever used Merge or VP/ix, I would not have needed to ask about them. I had assumed they both run as subprocesses under UNIX, and asked about UNIX-DOS integration in an attempt to find out how easy it is to transfer files and access data and hardware from the different environments. For example, I understand that Merge lets you run a DOS program from the UNIX command line. Does VP/ix do this or does it use an OS2-style compatibility box? How about graphics, particularly VGA? If I lose the advantages of Dos under UNIX if I want graphics, I might as well get back into my DOS partition and run it native. Someone else said that VP/ix requires a modified kernel while Merge does not. What are the implications of this? VP/ix may be harder to maintain, but is there a reward for the extra effort? >Warning! If you want to turn your UNIX machine into a DOS machine, >you'll pay the >price in more ways than you can imagine. ... [more stuff deleted] >UNIX is UNIX, and I happen to be one of those people whom grind their >teeth at even the mere existence of DOS. But then again clients are >clients, and the ODT-DOS implementation is highly functional. What Ahh, those crazy clients. No taste at all in software, eh? They probably don't care about anything except getting their work done. If DOS didnt have the largest installed user base in the world and the largest amount of quality business and productivity software out there, you purists wouldnt have these problems. Perhaps you've forgotten that DOS dates back to the days of 8088 based machines with 64K RAM. Since modern hardware has far outstripped the original constraints put on DOS, is it any wonder that DOS under UNIX is a popular topic? Come out of the lab and get a life. (My apologies to the net if this sounded harsh. It was "real hard not to flame." ;^> ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Mason Party on, dudes! DSC Communications M/S 121 1000 Coit Rd, Plano TX 75075 The opinions expressed herein are INET: dmason@digi.lonestar.org not necessarily mine or those of UUCP: ...!texsun!digi!dmason my employer. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
csmith@cscs.UUCP (Craig E. Smith) (09/12/90)
In <26E3F766.2F57@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >...is to discuss "MS-DOS running under Unix by whatever means." >So to get the ball rolling: Those who have used both Merge/386 and >VP/ix, which do you prefer? I have seen VP/ix demonstrated, but have not used it. I have Merge/386, use it once in a while, and have come to two conclusions based on my experience with it: 1) Their is very little I can do with DOS that I can't do in plain UNIX (with the exception of playing some of my favorite video games and writing user programs that directly address hardware). and 2) For the amount of money I spent on Merge/386 (including an expensive upgrade to get it to work on my VGA monitor), it would have been more cost effective to simply buy a used IBM/PC as a second machine, and not mess with my UNIX kernel (why do I start getting negative numbers in the SZ field of a 'ps -le' after running MERGE?). In short I find MERGE an interesting toy to play with, and as a software developer it seems an interesting concept, but I don't find it to be really worthwhile for my own use, especially considering the cost as compared to an actual PC, which is less likely to have any compatibility problems. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- No great man ever complains of want of | Internet: csmith@cscs.UUCP opportunity. - Ralph Waldo Emerson | UUCP: ... uunet!cscs!csmith -------------------------------------------------------------------------
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/25/90)
... is to discuss MS-DOS running under Unix. If you want to discuss Unix on PCs that might otherwise run MS-DOS, then the group you want is comp.unix.sysv386. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>