ih3e@pinstripe.cs.Virginia.EDU (Jan Hoenisch) (03/22/91)
I am looking for a cheap solution to getting a UNIX or clone OS running on my '286. I know this is the '386 group but the 286 group does not seem to be used heavily. My question is, is there a PD UNIX OS out there or is the cheapest OS MINIX? I have minix and I am looking for something for in the line of the large SUN os, SystemV or so. I have looked at Coherent but I was wondering more of the idea of Public Domain? Thanks in advance Ian -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Hoenisch (ih3e@virginia.edu) or (ih3e@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu) Graduate Student, Computer Science Department, Thornton Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442 Virtual reality is REAL; How real is virtuality? --------------------------------------------------------------------
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar21.175359.15633@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ih3e@pinstripe.cs.Virginia.EDU (Jan Hoenisch) writes: >I am looking for a cheap solution to getting a UNIX or clone OS running on my >'286. I know this is the '386 group but the 286 group does not seem to be used >heavily. My question is, is there a PD UNIX OS out there or is the cheapest >OS MINIX? I have minix and I am looking for something for in the line of the >large SUN os, SystemV or so. I have looked at Coherent but I was wondering >more of the idea of Public Domain? For $100.00 and some time spent downloading software, Coherent is a great deal. It is UNIX V7 compatible with some V5 extensions. The machine I am posting from at this moment is running Coherent 3.1.0, Cnews, and Rn. I have been running Coherent since early December, and have been very pleased. I still can't believe it's not UNIX. There is nothing like this in the public domain. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt) (03/25/91)
In article <9103232223.30@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > been running Coherent since early December, and have been very pleased. > > I still can't believe it's not UNIX. > > Which provokes the question.........just *what* is UNIX? Is it SVID? Is it really a philosophy? Can someone say that AIX, for instance, is 'UNIX', since some would argue it is really a proprietary OS based upon an 'old' version of 'UNIX'. If Coherent is *not* UNIX, as you imply, then what is UNIX? -- |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Terry Linhardt The Lafayette Group uunet!jgaltstl!terry | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (03/28/91)
In article <450@jgaltstl.UUCP> terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt) writes: > >Which provokes the question.........just *what* is UNIX? Is it >SVID? Is it really a philosophy? Can someone say that AIX, for >instance, is 'UNIX', since some would argue it is really a >proprietary OS based upon an 'old' version of 'UNIX'. If Coherent >is *not* UNIX, as you imply, then what is UNIX? No big mystery, UNIX is a not some philosophical notion or abstraction. It is a licensed product of AT&T. You want to know if something is UNIX, well does it require a license from AT&T, does AIX...yes, does Xenix...yes, does 4.3BSD...yes. Now what about Minix or Coherent...I'm sure you can answer that. Of course, the above mentioned operating systems may offer appreciable original code, but if they are using AT&T code they require the license, be it SVr2, SVr3 or whatever. Furthermore, the name "UNIX" is a registered trademark of AT&T. Philosophy and its abstractions...BAH!! -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (03/29/91)
>No big mystery, UNIX is a not some philosophical notion or abstraction. It >is a licensed product of AT&T. You want to know if something is UNIX, well >does it require a license from AT&T, does AIX...yes, does Xenix...yes, does >4.3BSD...yes. [...] Well if you're going to go this particular "legal" route then you'll need to ask AT&T, not just check their list of licensees. A number of vendors use licensed AT&T code but are not allowed by AT&T to refer to their product in the marketplace as "Unix". I think Xenix is one of those that can't be called "Unix", AIX probably should be according to AT&T's stardard for that appelation -- but there's more clout behind AIX and it's somewhat less deviant. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/04/91)
In article <450@jgaltstl.UUCP> terry@jgaltstl.UUCP (terry linhardt) writes: >In article <9103232223.30@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >> been running Coherent since early December, and have been very pleased. >> >> I still can't believe it's not UNIX. >> >> >Which provokes the question.........just *what* is UNIX? Is it >SVID? Is it really a philosophy? Can someone say that AIX, for >instance, is 'UNIX', since some would argue it is really a >proprietary OS based upon an 'old' version of 'UNIX'. If Coherent >is *not* UNIX, as you imply, then what is UNIX? To be called UNIX, an os must have the blessing of AT&T. This usually means that the os is a port of AT&T's proprietary code to a specific platform. If it passes SVID, and the developer has paid AT&T a source licensing fee, it can then be resold as UNIX. Coherent is a UNIX clone based upon V7 with some V5 extensions. At one point, Mark Williams Company had to prove in court that they did not use AT&T code. I have heard that they had to pay AT&T some money, and were told that they could not sell their product as UNIX. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (04/11/91)
In article <9104031454.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: | |Coherent is a UNIX clone based upon V7 with some V5 extensions. At one point, |Mark Williams Company had to prove in court that they did not use AT&T code. |I have heard that they had to pay AT&T some money, and were told that they |could not sell their product as UNIX. Are you sure of this? The last I heard (which was from one of the developers at Coherent, but this was about ten years ago) was that Mark Williams had a visit from a group of AT&T lawyers and some AT&T technical people (including Ken Thompson, if I recall correctly). The technical people tried a number of commands and quickly determined that Coherent did not trip any of the particular bugs or endcases that they tried. The lawyers found it hard to belive that they could be convinced so quickly that it wasn't copied code, so the technical people had to go back and do some checking - they, naturally enough, tested some of the programs in the /usr/games directory. It is possible that there was a later court case - all of the people that I knew working at MWC have long since gone to other companies. -- sendmail - as easy to operate and as painless as using | John Macdonald manually powered dental tools on yourself - John R. MacMillan | jmm@eci386
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr11.141408.27169@eci386.uucp> jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >In article <9104031454.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >| >|Coherent is a UNIX clone based upon V7 with some V5 extensions. At one point, >|Mark Williams Company had to prove in court that they did not use AT&T code. >|I have heard that they had to pay AT&T some money, and were told that they >|could not sell their product as UNIX. > >Are you sure of this? The last I heard (which was from one of >the developers at Coherent, but this was about ten years ago) >was that Mark Williams had a visit from a group of AT&T lawyers >and some AT&T technical people (including Ken Thompson, if I >recall correctly). The technical people tried a number of >commands and quickly determined that Coherent did not trip any >of the particular bugs or endcases that they tried. The lawyers >found it hard to belive that they could be convinced so quickly >that it wasn't copied code, so the technical people had to go >back and do some checking - they, naturally enough, tested some >of the programs in the /usr/games directory. > >It is possible that there was a later court case - all of the >people that I knew working at MWC have long since gone to other >companies. You may be right. My information came from someone who read about it nine or ten years ago. But it sure is a helluva lot like UNIX. After using it on my home system for about six months, I have become quite attached to it. I believe that I would rather run Coherent than other 286 UNIX ports. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UCP
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/17/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >You may be right. My information came from someone who read about it nine >or ten years ago. But it sure is a helluva lot like UNIX. After using it >on my home system for about six months, I have become quite attached to it. >I believe that I would rather run Coherent than other 286 UNIX ports. why is that? If you were to get a 386/20 with lets say 8 megs of ram - would you stay with coherent? -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.173457.14365@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >>on my home system for about six months, I have become quite attached to it. >>I believe that I would rather run Coherent than other 286 UNIX ports. > >why is that? If you were to get a 386/20 with lets say 8 megs of ram - >would you stay with coherent? I think the key phrase here was "286 UNIX ports." I'd be willing to bet that Rick would be quite happy with ISC or Esix on a 386/20 :-) Right Rick? I must admit, after seeing the way Coherent has taken off with the 286 crowd, and hearing of the things that people like Rick are doing with it, I'm pretty impressed. -- 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)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr16.173457.14365@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >>You may be right. My information came from someone who read about it nine >>or ten years ago. But it sure is a helluva lot like UNIX. After using it >>on my home system for about six months, I have become quite attached to it. >>I believe that I would rather run Coherent than other 286 UNIX ports. > >why is that? If you were to get a 386/20 with lets say 8 megs of ram - >would you stay with coherent? Well, since MWC is going to come out with a 386, 32 bit, VM kernel soon, I say; "Why not?". I've seen what SVR4 does to a 386. Eight megs isn't very much when you are talking about SVR4. I'm running news and hacking software with two megs of memory. If I was going to run real SYS V R 4 AT&T UNIX, I would want 24 to 32 megs. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr16.225637.463@unixland.uucp>, bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: > > I must admit, after seeing the way Coherent has taken off with the 286 > crowd, and hearing of the things that people like Rick are doing with it, > I'm pretty impressed. > Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? -- Fred ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06457 E-mail: <FLINTON@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU> or <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >In article <1991Apr16.225637.463@unixland.uucp>, bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >> >> I must admit, after seeing the way Coherent has taken off with the 286 >> crowd, and hearing of the things that people like Rick are doing with it, >> I'm pretty impressed. >> >Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given >that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if >I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? > Well, I'm not sure "good choice" would be appropriate ... It'll really be "wasting" the power of the 486. I don't mean to slam Coherent (it definitely has its place, like on a 286 for example), but it won't take advantage of your machine. But then, considering the limited memory and disk you have, maybe it's the only way to go. Most of the "real" (again, no flames please) Unixes require 4mb minimum. 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)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr16.225637.463@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >In article <1991Apr16.173457.14365@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>>on my home system for about six months, I have become quite attached to it. >>>I believe that I would rather run Coherent than other 286 UNIX ports. >> >>why is that? If you were to get a 386/20 with lets say 8 megs of ram - >>would you stay with coherent? > >I think the key phrase here was "286 UNIX ports." I'd be willing to >bet that Rick would be quite happy with ISC or Esix on a 386/20 :-) > >Right Rick? > >I must admit, after seeing the way Coherent has taken off with the 286 >crowd, and hearing of the things that people like Rick are doing with it, >I'm pretty impressed. Well, there will be 386 box in my forseeable future. I will not want to run a 286 protected mode kernel on a 32 bit machine. If the Coherent 32 bit VM kernel is available at that point, I will probably go for it. Otherwise, I would probably use ISC, since I have had a fair amount of experience with their package. A few years ago I played around with XENIX on a 10 mhz 286. Using it was like watching paint dry. Coherent on my 12 mhz 286 is fairly responsive, and reasonable for hacking on. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >In article <1991Apr16.225637.463@unixland.uucp>, bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >> >> I must admit, after seeing the way Coherent has taken off with the 286 >> crowd, and hearing of the things that people like Rick are doing with it, >> I'm pretty impressed. >> >Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given >that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if >I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? Well, it ought to be pretty fast. And the price is right. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/22/91)
In article <9104182040.41@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >Well, there will be 386 box in my forseeable future. I will not want to run >a 286 protected mode kernel on a 32 bit machine. If the Coherent 32 bit VM >kernel is available at that point, I will probably go for it. Otherwise, I >would probably use ISC, since I have had a fair amount of experience with >their package. > (donning flame-retardent suit, I can see the flame throwers being aimed already :-) Rick -- Considering the similarities between ISC and ESIX -- would you really spend the extra money for ISC? This is a home system, right? -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)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (04/23/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: [after some discussion about Coherent] > ...Most of the "real" > (again, no flames please) Unixes require 4mb minimum... Interesting data point: Bill and Lynne Jolitz have said that a minimal 386 BSD system will run (perhaps a bit slowly, but not unreasonably) in 640 Kb! That seems to have been one of the goals. You can argue whether 386 BSD is "real" in the sense that you can't go out and buy one...but it seems fair to call it "real" in a technical sense. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr21.222710.410@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >In article <9104182040.41@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>Well, there will be 386 box in my forseeable future. I will not want to run >>a 286 protected mode kernel on a 32 bit machine. If the Coherent 32 bit VM >>kernel is available at that point, I will probably go for it. Otherwise, I >>would probably use ISC, since I have had a fair amount of experience with >>their package. >> > > >(donning flame-retardent suit, I can see the flame throwers being aimed >already :-) > >Rick -- Considering the similarities between ISC and ESIX -- would you >really spend the extra money for ISC? This is a home system, right? You do have a point there. ESIX has the price advantage. And I don't really want to pay much over $1000 for UNIX. I would probably look at ESIX before I put my money on the table. I just happen to have a fair amount of experience with ISC, and none with ESIX. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr22.185539.14876@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >[after some discussion about Coherent] >> ...Most of the "real" >> (again, no flames please) Unixes require 4mb minimum... > >Interesting data point: Bill and Lynne Jolitz have said that a minimal 386 >BSD system will run (perhaps a bit slowly, but not unreasonably) in 640 Kb! >That seems to have been one of the goals. > >You can argue whether 386 BSD is "real" in the sense that you can't go out >and buy one...but it seems fair to call it "real" in a technical sense. Approximately two years ago I was getting work done with ISC on a 386 box with two megs of memory. When I upgrade from Coherent 286 to a VMUNIX, it will be on a box with at least 8 megs of memory. 16 megs if I can afford it. What does BSD replace in the AT&T code to allow it to run in 640k? Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
shawn@jpradley.jpr.com (Shawn Blair) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >In article <1991Apr16.225637.463@unixland.uucp>, bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >> >> stuff deleted ... >> >Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given >that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if >I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? > If those are your limitations (memory and space), then Coherent could be a very good choice. Most full blown 'ix systems would barely run (if at all) on your configuration. I use Coherent on a 286 w/20Mb and 1Mb memory and it runs very well. Of course I would like additional memory and space, but we all have our limitations :). shawn _______________________________________________________________________________ -- Shawn R. Blair ~ shawn@jpr.com -- -- --
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: | Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given | that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if | I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? As long as you realize that it's not UNIX you are fine. I believe it will run all V7 stuff, and some SysIII stuff. Maybe with BSD enhancements. If you want to hack around and have fun it's fine, will run news, etc. Any of the common variants based on AT&T code are going to want more disk, and anything except Xenix will want more memory, although it definitely will run in 2MB. Having run Xenix on a 286 for three years at work, I can assure you that with proper tuning it is not the pig someone implied. The response can be quite good, but the segmented archetecture is a pain. Not that Coherent makes it any easier, it just restricts you to small model (this may no longer be true). If you want a spiffy dead solid system for home which will give adequate response on an XT (not great, but useful) look around for a used copy of PC/ix, IBM's port of SysIII for XT or AT. We still have at least two copies running at work, because they do everything the users want, which is news and mail, UNIX utilities, and a little light C programming. -- 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
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/25/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>kernel is available at that point, I will probably go for it. Otherwise, I >>would probably use ISC, since I have had a fair amount of experience with >>their package. >Rick -- Considering the similarities between ISC and ESIX -- would you >really spend the extra money for ISC? This is a home system, right? ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton for example).. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/25/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >I put my money on the table. I just happen to have a fair amount of >experience with ISC, and none with ESIX. that is the key - you know what does and what doesn't work with ISC - while with ESIX you are back at square one. That experience with ISC counts for something.. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/26/91)
In article <3798@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > As long as you realize that it's not UNIX you are fine. As far as I ca tell Coherent is UNIX. Oh, it's not "unix(tm)", but for all intents and purposes UNIX is the 35 main system calls in section 2 of the manual, and Coherent's got them. UNIX isn't an O/S, it's an API. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (04/26/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: [I had said] > >Interesting data point: Bill and Lynne Jolitz have said that a minimal 386 > >BSD system will run (perhaps a bit slowly, but not unreasonably) in 640 Kb! ... > What does BSD replace in the AT&T code to allow it to run in 640k? It's a different line of development, dating back ten years or so. BSD developed off the V7/32V code base, in its own direction, while SysV traces back thru SysIII to PWB, very roughly. (PWB was a slight tangent, about between V6 and V7 in time.) SysIII picked up some V7 features, but then mostly went its own way. The real difference is the amount of cru^H^H^Hfeatures added to the two systems over the years. BSD hasn't been reluctant to add goo, but they just can't keep up with the commercial development. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.143615.12473@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the >shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton >for example).. I've seen this said over and over again by Larry (the FFS issue). I haven't seen the same from anyone else. Say, anyone else out there have this experience? The ESIX FFS may well be slower than ISC's -- but it doesn't "feel" any different to me than the other Unix systems I work on (Harris Sysv with FFS, SunOS in various flavors). I guess there's probably more to the issue than "how it feels." As far as apps go ... the original conversation was about HOME Unix systems. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt that the majority of people can spend $500 to $1K on a single software package (other than the OS itself). When I got WP5.1 for my DOS machine, I paid something like $220 for it. That's the price range most people expect for software for home machines. That being said, I agree that ISC has the name advantage over ESIX. If we're in the business of talking about NAMES, though, SCO has the unmitigated lead. -- 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)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (04/26/91)
In article <9104240623.36@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >What does BSD replace in the AT&T code to allow it to run in 640k? The entire virtual-memory management scheme. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) (04/27/91)
In article <3798@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: =In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: = =| Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given =| that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if =| I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? = = As long as you realize that it's not UNIX you are fine. I hear this statement a lot, Bill, but no one says in any detail what it means. It seems to me that you're the right guy to do the job. What do you say, huh? Thanks, 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 -- 4/20-21/91
pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr25.143615.12473@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
=ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the
=shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton
=for example)..
Does that mean that those off-the-shelf apps will *not* run under ESIX?
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 -- 4/20-21/91rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/28/91)
In article <3798@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1991Apr18.211830.41902@eagle.wesleyan.edu> flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: > >| Should I infer that Coherent might be a good choice for my ALR 486, given >| that it sports but 2 Meg of RAM and only 30 Meg on its HD (well, 40 Meg if >| I scrap my current 10 Meg DOS 4.01 partition) ? > > As long as you realize that it's not UNIX you are fine. I believe it >will run all V7 stuff, and some SysIII stuff. Maybe with BSD >enhancements. If you want to hack around and have fun it's fine, will >run news, etc. It does have some SYSV stuff in it. Shared memory, semaphores, and message passing. And some SYSV compatible library routines. > Having run Xenix on a 286 for three years at work, I can assure you >that with proper tuning it is not the pig someone implied. The response >can be quite good, but the segmented archetecture is a pain. Not that >Coherent makes it any easier, it just restricts you to small model (this >may no longer be true). There is supposed to be a large model kernel in the works. There is also a 386 VM kernel in the works. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr25.143741.12550@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >>I put my money on the table. I just happen to have a fair amount of >>experience with ISC, and none with ESIX. > >that is the key - you know what does and what doesn't work with ISC - >while with ESIX you are back at square one. That experience with ISC >counts for something.. Putting ISC on a home machine would be like have an old friend come to visit, at least for me. It's a little more expensive, but I can set it up in my sleep. I would not purchase Vpix or networking, so it could end up being not much more than ESIX. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/28/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >>ISC and their FFS is so much faster than ESIX - and so many off the >>shelf UNIX applications are available for ISC (Word Perfect and Norton >>for example).. >I've seen this said over and over again by Larry (the FFS issue). I haven't >seen the same from anyone else. Say, anyone else out there have this >experience? The ESIX FFS may well be slower than ISC's -- but it doesn't >"feel" any different to me than the other Unix systems I work on (Harris >Sysv with FFS, SunOS in various flavors). it's just very fast - period. Nothing (that I have played with) for 386 based machines comes close.. ok, then on the second issue above, you mentioned in a previous article that ISC VP/ix didn't work under ESIX with some applications - which brings up my second issue that you quoted. Those who buy ESIX and purchase a package that doesn't offically support ESIX - are "on your own" >I guess there's probably more to the issue than "how it feels." >As far as apps go ... the original conversation was about HOME Unix systems. >Maybe I'm mistaken, but I doubt that the majority of people can spend >$500 to $1K on a single software package (other than the OS itself). >When I got WP5.1 for my DOS machine, I paid something like $220 for it. >That's the price range most people expect for software for home machines. WP for UNIX is (I believe) the same price as for DOS (single user that is). >That being said, I agree that ISC has the name advantage over ESIX. >If we're in the business of talking about NAMES, though, SCO has the >unmitigated lead. SCO has the lead if you consider their XENIX licenses - -- 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}
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
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) (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. > > >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? I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX and ESIX are. I really doubt there would be any problem that could not be easily worked around. There are a few minor differences, like ESIX calling the virtual terminals /dev/vcXX where ISC calls them /dev/vtXX, and ESIX using the AT386-M terminfo for the console while ISC calls it AT386. I've not done too much of this, but I've had 100% success so far (ok, I've only done it once :-) using a device driver for ISC that installed and worked fine under ESIX, with the hardware vendor telling me "We don't support ESIX." (Computone) > How come a text-based > application like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386 > plataforms. If you are including Xenix, in that case Wordperfect has two different products -- one for UNIX and one for Xenix 386. The Xenix product will not run on UNIX, due at least to not having support for the the UNIX console in the Xenix product. Xenix handles the console differently. To continue to answer your question, a better example would be SCO's Lyrix word processor. I have migrated a client from Xenix 286 to ESIX rev. D. There were two problems moving lyrix. First, when lyrix prints, it tries to access the lpr command. This was easy to work around. Second, lyrix (and I'm told other SCO applications as well) modifies the terminal settings when it starts up, but does not clean up after itself when it exits. This messes up some other applications (I'm having trouble with RealWorld accounting at the moment). It's stupid little things like this that lead people to using phrases like "theoretical binary compatibility" when referring to the merge of Xenix and AT&T Unix in System V 3.2. Jay Ts, Director Metran Technology uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/30/91)
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX >and ESIX are. I really doubt there would be any problem that could not be >easily worked around. >There are a few minor differences, like ESIX calling the virtual terminals >/dev/vcXX where ISC calls them /dev/vtXX, and ESIX using the AT386-M terminfo >for the console while ISC calls it AT386. maybe so - but many vendors don't consider ESIX a major contender in the 386 based UNIX market - so they don't show an interest in supporting it >If you are including Xenix, in that case Wordperfect has two different >products -- one for UNIX and one for Xenix 386. The Xenix product will >not run on UNIX, due at least to not having support for the the UNIX >console in the Xenix product. Xenix handles the console differently. No, Word Perfect has seperate releases for ISC and SCO UNIX. -- 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) (04/30/91)
In article <24@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >> >Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >> >Unix - but not for ESIX. >> > >I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX >and ESIX are. (Deleted Stuff - Excellent discussion on using off-the-shelf software in under Xenix, ISC and Esix - see original article) Let me try to bring this thread to its conclusion. How can Esix (and all the small-volume 386/ix vendors like Dell, Microport, UHC) expect to stay in business if users are not 100% sure they can run software sold for SCO and ISC? Someone mentioned in a previous posting that commercial software is unimportant for most Esix users. IMHO, this is only the case because interesting software is either expensive or unavailable. I hardly ever use a spreadsheet, but when I do, I would love to be able open a window with EXCEL instead of sc.
fangchin@elaine54.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.204310.22760@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: >In article <24@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >>> >Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >>> >Unix - but not for ESIX. >>> >> >>I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX >>and ESIX are. > >(Deleted Stuff - Excellent discussion on using off-the-shelf software >in under Xenix, ISC and Esix - see original article) > >Let me try to bring this thread to its conclusion. How can Esix (and >all the small-volume 386/ix vendors like Dell, Microport, UHC) expect >to stay in business if users are not 100% sure they can run >software sold for SCO and ISC? > >Someone mentioned in a previous posting that commercial software is >unimportant for most Esix users. IMHO, this is only the case because ^^^^ I am the "someone". Please note that I only said *some*. I didn't and never never said *most*. You misquoted me I am afraid. >interesting software is either expensive or unavailable. I hardly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ How do you define "interesting"? Do you think gcc/g++, X386 boring? Furthermore, nothing in commerical domain beats gnuplot 2.02 with 3D ext as far as scientific plotting is concerned [note I said scientific plotting] Perl is THE language of choice of many SAs (including this humble poster) and it's available from Larry Wall free! Try buy some thing like this from commerical domain. Calling Perl *uninteresting* in comp.lang.perl and I am sure you will need to don a high quality flame retardant suite really quick. expansive, for comerical software, indeed true in most cases. A few are not. ProYAM is a good example. unavailable? Why? If you put in time/effort, some freeware are truely exciting and useful. (hint, monster disk) >ever use a spreadsheet, but when I do, I would love to be able open a >window with EXCEL instead of sc. Yes indeed, Even Andrew EZ X based spreadsheet is weak. As far as I can tell, the two weakest areas as far as free UNIX software is concerned are 1. spreadsheet with a X interface. and 2. database with a X interface. (they are some good engines out there though) We can only hope as Oleo envolves, part of 1 will disappear. But, when you don't need to pay money for. Some compromises have to be made I guess. Just some thoughts/(and minor corrections?). Interesting discussions however. Regards, Chin Fang Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University fangchin@leland.stanford.edu
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (04/30/91)
In article <9104271304.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >Putting ISC on a home machine would be like have an old friend come to >visit, at least for me. It's a little more expensive, but I can set it >up in my sleep. I would not purchase Vpix or networking, so it could end >up being not much more than ESIX. > Maybe they've (ISC) has changed their pricing policy. Back in September of 1990 when I was Unix-shopping, the only package that came close to what I needed (X11, etc) was around $1500 to 1800, if memory serves me right. Esix was around $800. Yeah, it's "a little more expensive" :-) :-) Do they now have more optional packages that make it possible to get the basic system with just Xwindows (and not all the other stuff that most home systems won't use anyway) for a lower price? -- 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 <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)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/30/91)
In article <24@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >There are a few minor differences, like ESIX using the AT386-M >terminfo for the console while ISC calls it AT386. Both ISC and ESIX have AT386 and AT386-M terminfo descriptions for the console. The "-M" is for monochrome. -- 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
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (04/30/91)
>>I've seen this said over and over again by Larry (the FFS issue). I haven't >>seen the same from anyone else. Say, anyone else out there have this >>experience? The ESIX FFS may well be slower than ISC's -- but it doesn't >>"feel" any different to me than the other Unix systems I work on (Harris >>Sysv with FFS, SunOS in various flavors). > >it's just very fast - period. Nothing (that I have played with) >for 386 based machines comes close.. Can anyone report any such comparisons between ISC and any of the new SysV R4 ports? -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
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
dag@fciva.FRANKCAP.COM (Daniel A. Graifer) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr29.212432.17198@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >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? >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 I think this is an answer to a different question than was asked. There are a number of places where MS-DOS applications running under a DOS emulator such as VP/ix will have problems. This says absolutely nothing about the recent implementations on unix of packages originally popularized under DOS. I suspect the problems you had would have occured no matter which version of Unix you were running VP/ix on. The same is true for Merge386. I've even had trouble running WP on MS-DOS PCs that were running PC-Interface. Given the brain-damaged way DOS encourages developers to write their software, it is hardly surprising that strange incompatibilities crop up in all kinds of environments. Oh by the way, under both PC-Interface and Merge386, I've had success just telling WordPerfect 5.0 that LPTn: are not network printers at all, and letting the bridge software do it's own thing to redirect it. Maybe this will work for VP/ix as well. Dan -- Daniel A. Graifer Coastal Capital Funding Corp. Sr. Vice President, Financial Systems 7900 Westpark Dr. Suite A-130 (703)821-3244 McLean, VA 22102 uunet!fciva!dag fciva.FRANKCAP.COM!dag@uunet.uu.net -- Daniel A. Graifer Coastal Capital Funding Corp. Sr. Vice President, Financial Systems 7900 Westpark Dr. Suite A-130 (703)821-3244 McLean, VA 22102 uunet!fciva!dag fciva.FRANKCAP.COM!dag@uunet.uu.net
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}
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/01/91)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >Do they now have more optional packages that make it possible to get >the basic system with just Xwindows (and not all the other stuff that >most home systems won't use anyway) for a lower price? Well, now the best unix deal (to me) is Dell SVR4 - $1295 includes everything, TCP/IP, NFS, X11R4, DOS under UNIX, Motif, etc.. - all unlimited users -- -- 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}
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/01/91)
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: >Can anyone report any such comparisons between ISC and any of the new >SysV R4 ports? I've been told that the FFS with SVR4 is quite fast indeed - I should have some public information on this subject within the next 60 days... -- 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 <1991Apr29.204310.22760@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: > >Someone mentioned in a previous posting that commercial software is >unimportant for most Esix users. IMHO, this is only the case because >interesting software is either expensive or unavailable. I hardly >ever use a spreadsheet, but when I do, I would love to be able open a >window with EXCEL instead of sc. I'd say it's mostly the COST factor. If say, Lotus 123, were available for ESIX, at a price comparable with what it costs for the DOS version, I'd consider buying a copy (but I don't use spreadsheets "that much"). The problem is, even if they offered it for the same ($495?), there isn't the same competetion in the Unix world as there is in the DOS world, so I woulnd't be able to walk into my local Egghead store and say "I want you to beat the best price I've seen..." -- 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) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr29.211853.5031@leland.Stanford.EDU> fangchin@elaine54.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) writes: > >Yes indeed, Even Andrew EZ X based spreadsheet is weak. As far as I can tell, >the two weakest areas as far as free UNIX software is concerned are > >1. spreadsheet with a X interface. and >2. database with a X interface. (they are some good engines out there though) I'd expand that to say 1. spreadsheet with ANY interface! Not to criticize the author of SC, but going from Lotus 123 to SC is like going from a ferrari to a tricycle! -- 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) (05/01/91)
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)
bob@rancor.UUCP (Bob Willcox) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr27.225054.21158@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: (about the ISC fast file system) >it's just very fast - period. Nothing (that I have played with) >for 386 based machines comes close.. Can you perhaps quantify this with some kind of benchmark results? -- Bob Willcox ...!{rutgers|ames}!cs.utexas.edu!romp!rancor!bob Phone: 512 258-4224
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (05/01/91)
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. Bullshit. Interactive distributes (and probably had a hand in the development in) UNIX Norton, similar to the ties SCO has with Microsoft Word for UNIX. It's in their interests to sell their products to as many 386 *IX users as possible, regardless of platform. Both Norton (and UNIX MS-Word) come in versions (either install-time options, or separate distribution) for "AT&T UNIX". This is a generic version that will install on ESIX, Dell, Intel/BellTech, and of course the version AT&T sells for its own hardware. Norton will run on any system using standard AT&T filesystems. Unusual ones like ISC's or ESIX's FFS would need special drivers. My company has sold -- and supported -- the above products, as well as WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and a bunch of others -- on ESIX. The customers are happy. We've developed a fairly extensive catalogue of software which we have tested are prepared to support under ESIX, and there isn't much missing that you'd expect to find. >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) ? Interactive's standard filesystem is a bit different from the vanilla AT&T System V filesystem. You'd *need* special drivers for the ISC filesystem, and Interactive's distribution of Norton guarantees you'll find that support, if you're installing it on an ISC system. I personally don't consider much benefit in Norton specifically, so I don't bemoan its lack of support for the ESIX FFS. >>Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive >>Unix - but not for ESIX. Where do you buy from? The only versions available from my suppliers are for "SCO Xenix" and "Generic 386 UNIX". But what about products that *might* have separate distributions for ISC and SCO UNIX... So what? All that would say is that SCO UNIX and ISC are sufficiently different from each other to require separate distributions. It would illustrate that one of them, or maybe both, deviate from attempts at a single 'shrink-wrap' standard. It says, however, nothing about how well ESIX supports one (or both) of the distributions. We run the 386 UNIX distribution of WP on ESIX, make no changes to the installation procedure, and have had no problems. I do not know enough about the differences between SCO and ISC UNIX that would require separate distributions. Frankly, I find it good news, not bad, that ESIX does *not* require a separate distribution. >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. Some 386 applications try to do cute things with the console when being run there, to take advantage of most 386 computers' hardware graphic capabilities. Rick Richardson posted (July 31, 1990) an article on the incompatabilities between the console ioctl values of the major 386 UNIX vendors. ESIX's values matched the AT&T release exactly, while both ISC and SCO strayed (in different ways). So who's to blame? Which one is the standard ESIX (and Dell, and Microport, etc.) should follow? I share Rick's hope (expressed in his article) that the vendors did a better job collaborating on a standard for console programming in R4. If not, the cynic in me would think that certain vendors *still* believe it in their interests to "make their own standards". Anyway, anything running on terminals (or the console in text-only mode) works just fine under ESIX, thank you. And software packages that don't play with the console (including most DBMS systems) don't generally have special versions for different 386 implementations. >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/?) The best way to check compatability, regardless of what platform you're buying from, is to go to a knowledgable vendor/dealer who has pre-tested what they're selling you. That was always important for hardware, it's also often important for software too. That proponents of ISC and/or SCO would say that only their platforms will properly run 386 UNIX software is no more than marketing hype at best and scare tactics at worst. Any resemblance to reality is purely a fluke. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 As bad as Dan Quayle may seem, he'll never compare to Spiro Agnew.
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) (05/02/91)
In article <281ECF1C.1D46@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > Rick Richardson posted (July 31, 1990) an article on the >incompatabilities between the console ioctl values of the major 386 UNIX >vendors. ESIX's values matched the AT&T release exactly, while both ISC >and SCO strayed (in different ways). Could anyone that saved a copy of this article repost it (or mail it to me)? >The best way to check compatability, regardless of what platform you're >buying from, is to go to a knowledgable vendor/dealer who has pre-tested >what they're selling you. That was always important for hardware, it's >also often important for software too. Not if you are buying an inexpensive, high-volume product. This should be the case with general purpose word processors, spreadsheets etc. I wish I could buy them from perfectly ignorant dealers. This is the case with hardware in the PC clone world. Your favorite computer clone-maker down the street sells machines that work with very minimal support from their part. Of course, multi-user systems and some specialized applications are a different story entirely, even under DOS. >That proponents of ISC and/or SCO would say that only their platforms will >properly run 386 UNIX software is no more than marketing hype at best and >scare tactics at worst. Well, they have numbers on their side. It would be crazy for a 386 software developer not to support SCO, regardless of how much they deviate from the standard UNIX 386.
jerry@talos.npri.com (Jerry Gitomer) (05/02/91)
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes: :In article <281ECF1C.1D46@telly.on.ca: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: ::The best way to check compatability, regardless of what platform you're ::buying from, is to go to a knowledgable vendor/dealer who has pre-tested ::what they're selling you. That was always important for hardware, it's ::also often important for software too. :Not if you are buying an inexpensive, high-volume product. This should :be the case with general purpose word processors, spreadsheets etc. :I wish I could buy them from perfectly ignorant dealers. This is :the case with hardware in the PC clone world. Your favorite computer :clone-maker down the street sells machines that work with very minimal :support from their part. My circle of friends and acquaintances includes a substantial number of pc consultants, many of whom are making good money, catering to the needs of those who buy from perfectly ignorant dealers. While it is certainly true that most pc vendors are selling price rather than support that doesn't mean that there isn't a substantial demand for support. -- Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. Ma Bell (703)683-9090 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry )
wes@harem.clydeunix.com (Wes Peters) (05/02/91)
In article <2JZA6-B@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > UNIX isn't an O/S, it's an API. Unix isn't an OS or an API, its a religion... a way of thinking... a way of life... :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: +-} ^^^ Hey! How'd that anchor slip in there? Wes Peters -- #include <std/disclaimer.h> The worst day sailing My opinions, your screen. is much better than Raxco had nothing to do with this! the best day at work. Wes Peters: wes@harem.clydeunix.com ...!sun!unislc!harem!wes
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)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (05/02/91)
In article <1991Apr29.212222.17102@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >In article <9104271304.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>Putting ISC on a home machine would be like have an old friend come to >>visit, at least for me. It's a little more expensive, but I can set it >>up in my sleep. I would not purchase Vpix or networking, so it could end >>up being not much more than ESIX. >> > >Maybe they've (ISC) has changed their pricing policy. Back in September >of 1990 when I was Unix-shopping, the only package that came close to >what I needed (X11, etc) was around $1500 to 1800, if memory serves me >right. Esix was around $800. Yeah, it's "a little more expensive" :-) :-) What did you get for $800? Recent posts here have seemed to say that a 2 user development package for ESIX with printed manuals is about $1300. I haven't been thinking about Xwindows, as it seems to look lousy on a small, 800x600 VGA monitor. And 1Kx780 16" monitors ain't cheap. >Do they now have more optional packages that make it possible to get >the basic system with just Xwindows (and not all the other stuff that >most home systems won't use anyway) for a lower price? As far as I know, you can get ISC without Xwindows or networking. I'm not sure if you can get it without VPIX. But I figured $1300-1400 for ISC. If there is a way to buy ESIX complete with manuals for $800, let me know where. This would certainly effect my decision. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/03/91)
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >using standard AT&T filesystems. Unusual ones like ISC's or ESIX's FFS >would need special drivers. ok, so they (it) works with the stock AT&T filesystem - >WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and a bunch of others -- on ESIX. The customers >are happy. We've developed a fairly extensive catalogue of software >which we have tested are prepared to support under ESIX, and there isn't >much missing that you'd expect to find. but the software isn't supported from the vendors - and like I said - Word Perfect doesn't support their product on ESIX - so if a problem develops - you could be on your own >Where do you buy from? The only versions available from my suppliers >are for "SCO Xenix" and "Generic 386 UNIX". Softsell (MicroD) -- 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}
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}
jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) (05/04/91)
In article <24@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: > I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX > and ESIX are. I really doubt there would be any problem that could not be > easily worked around. Since upgrading to SCO Unix, we've used the Xenix copy of WP that we have under Unix with no problems. > There are a few minor differences, like ESIX calling the virtual terminals > /dev/vcXX where ISC calls them /dev/vtXX, and ESIX using the AT386-M terminfo > for the console while ISC calls it AT386. WP comes with it's own terminal description database, with it's own (often very different from the OS's default) names for terminal types. For instance, WP uses "scocons" and "scoconscol" as the type names for the SCO console term emulation. > > How come a text-based > > application like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386 > > plataforms. I would guess there is a problem in WP 5.0, which is not strictly text based because of the document preview mode it has, which is cause by the fact that several unix386 vendors have adopted different ways to address the video hardware. I think the new ABI standard worked out recently is supposed to solve this problem. > If you are including Xenix, in that case Wordperfect has two different > products -- one for UNIX and one for Xenix 386. The Xenix product will > not run on UNIX, due at least to not having support for the the UNIX > console in the Xenix product. Xenix handles the console differently. WP 4.2 for Xenix works just fine under Unix. As I mentioned above, WP 5.0 may be a different animal because of the page preview, but if you didn't use the page preview option, my guess is that it would work just fine. > It's stupid little things like this that lead people to using phrases like > "theoretical binary compatibility" when referring to the merge of Xenix > and AT&T Unix in System V 3.2. This is the reason we stuck with SCO Unix. I came to the conclusion that if any Unix 386 vendor was going to insure backward compatibility with Xenix, it would be SCO. This is born out by the fact that we still build and execute programs using Xenix 286 libraries that were originally bought for Altos Xenix 286 on our SCO Unix machines. And, by the fact that SCO Unix feels very much like Xenix. I was actually hoping it would feel more like our HP-UX systems (since those are our main systems), but recent threads in comp.sys.hp have been indicating that even HP-UX is derived from BSD and made to feel like Sys V. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc. 615/821-4022 x. 651
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (05/04/91)
In article <9105011621.52@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >What did you get for $800? Recent posts here have seemed to say that a >2 user development package for ESIX with printed manuals is about $1300. Esix SYSVR3 Rev D is in the $800 ballpark. It's the SYSVR4 (as-yet unreleased) that's in the $1300 range. -- 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 <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)
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (05/04/91)
>WP comes with it's own terminal description database, with it's own (often >very different from the OS's default) names for terminal types. For >instance, WP uses "scocons" and "scoconscol" as the type names for the >SCO console term emulation. Why must the MSDOS boys always enlist morons from the wrong side of the tracks to do their Unix ports for them? :-( I'll bet their termcrap database is some inscrutable binary format just to keep mere mortals away. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/04/91)
jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: >> > How come a text-based >> > application like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386 >> > plataforms. >I would guess there is a problem in WP 5.0, which is not strictly text based >because of the document preview mode it has, which is cause by the fact that >several unix386 vendors have adopted different ways to address the video >hardware. I think the new ABI standard worked out recently is supposed >to solve this problem. exactly - this put the display into a raw VGA graphics mode with zoom and scroll options - to view the complete document as it will be printed - which was a real timesaver this last semester. The original 5.0 release of WP (for UNIX) had a bug where this feature didn't work - but an updated release of 5.0 is available where this has been corrected. >This is the reason we stuck with SCO Unix. I came to the conclusion that if >any Unix 386 vendor was going to insure backward compatibility with Xenix, >it would be SCO. This is born out by the fact that we still build and >execute programs using Xenix 286 libraries that were originally bought for >Altos Xenix 286 on our SCO Unix machines. And, by the fact that SCO Unix FYI - we are running 386 Xenix, 286 Xenix and ISC UNIX binaries under SVR4 2.0 without ANY problems --- -- 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}
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 <832@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: >In article <24@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >> I think it's just a case of Wordperfect not realizing how similar ISC UNIX >> and ESIX are. I really doubt there would be any problem that could not be >> easily worked around. >Since upgrading to SCO Unix, we've used the Xenix copy of WP that we have >under Unix with no problems. >This is the reason we stuck with SCO Unix. I came to the conclusion that if >any Unix 386 vendor was going to insure backward compatibility with Xenix, >it would be SCO. This is born out by the fact that we still build and >execute programs using Xenix 286 libraries that were originally bought for >Altos Xenix 286 on our SCO Unix machines. I have had NO problems running Xenix programs under Esix. As a matter of fact, there is an xinstall package for install Xenix packages on ESIX. Here is the tail of that file. ---------- echo "\n" echo "XENIX System V/386 $pack PACKAGE INSTALLATION COMPLETED" echo echo 'Now return to the installation section of "Starting XENIX."\n' exit 0 ---------- And when executing the custom file, instead of the first three options being OS, Dev Sys, and Text processing with item 4 being "Add a supported product", the menu just comes up with 1. Add a supported product. The Unix V.3.2 is supposed to run Xenix binaries, and it does. And binaries compiled under SCO's Xenix work find too. The surprise is when you do a files on a Xenix file. files on a typical Unix file is <filename>: iAPX 386 executable while file on a Xenix file in the same system gives this. <filename>: Microsoft a.out separate pure segmented word-swapped not-stripped 386 executable Say THAT 3 times fast. All of the current 385 Unix release should run the binaries with no problems. However SCO did do a lot of work to make sure that all those familiar with Xenix would have no problems and retain a familiarity. I have both SCO's Xenix and Esix's Unix and have no problems running Xenix files on Unix. And I have no problems moving tar files between the machines, or mounting a Xenix file system floppy on the Unix machine. I have not tried the reverse. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
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
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (05/05/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and a bunch of others -- on ESIX. The customers >>are happy. We've developed a fairly extensive catalogue of software >>which we have tested are prepared to support under ESIX, and there isn't >>much missing that you'd expect to find. > >but the software isn't supported from the vendors - and like I said - >Word Perfect doesn't support their product on ESIX - so if a problem >develops - you could be on your own If, if, if... I remember the same arguments being used when Phoenix and AMI tried to come up with compatible BIOS chips. IBM apologists would always say, "but no software supports these other brands of BIOS, you might be out in the cold". The applications shouldn't care what company supplied the BIOS calls, or the UNIX system calls, as long as they're there, they're compatible, and they work. There are a number of products out there right now only "certified" by the vendor for SCO UNIX because that's likely where the devlopment was done. That doesn't mean that other platforms aren't supported, and it's certainly not enough reason on its own to switch to SCO. It is certainly up to the maker of the compatible equipment, hardware or software, to make sure their stuff *is* compatible. (It wasn't that long ago, the same arguments were launched against ISC once their 3.2 had the ability to run Xenix software). ESIX has responded well to the reports about console incompatabilities, which have been the only differences detectable by applications (that is, those which don't need to muck about with the kernel or filesystems :-P). Where kernel hooks have been seen as appropriate or necessary (for instance, to run VP/ix), they've been supplied. I have not had any problems at all ever dealing with WP support in the few times I've had to do it. I've been honest in identifying the platform, and it hasn't effected the answers I've received. \begin{soapbox} It is only due to the arrogance of the major players that 386 UNIX hasn't achieved a binary/distribution standard similar to 88open. Then this whole issue would be moot. Unfortunately, we happen to be blessed with SCO, a company which has embraced the Microsoft mentality of "who needs cooperative standards when it's easier to make our own?". And since the Intel UNIX pullout and the early botch of SCO UNIX 1.0, Interactive has shown disturbing signs of gaining the same arrogance. As Rick R. pointed out in his original posting, a single conference call between ISC, SCO and AT&T would have prevented what little incompatabilities exist now between the different UNIX vendors. Where is the common sense among those players? If the 386 UNIX market doesn't get its *collective* act together, all of its members just play into the hands of the UNIX-bashers and AT-architecture-bashers. Take Microsoft, which despite owning a piece of SCO, will spew anti-UNIX dogma to anyone who'll listen. On one hand, they complain that 386 UNIX doesn't have a single binary standard, while they own stock in the company that's worked hardest to scuttle attempts at just such a standard. Bait for consipracy theories, anyone? Factual example: I attended the press release at the Washington UniForum (1990) where Intel, as a chip maker, attempted to roll out what it called its Applications Binary Interface. Many hardware vendors, applications vendors, and all but one 386 UNIX vendor pledged support for the ABI. But without the support of that one 386 vendor, the whole effort was a washout. Folks from Intel told me there that they literally begged for SCO's support, but could not get it. Who is served by this lack of co-operation? There is abosutely no reason why there should be separate versions of a word processor for SCO and ISC. That there is, is an indictment of both companies, and has been a significant obstacle to getting more publishers of major software packages to release UNIX ports. One day I hope that the major players will see that their pitiful attempts to screw their smaller competition will only hurt them too in the long run. \end{soapbox} Anyway, desipte this, the differences which do exist are not large, and comprehensible to even a merely competent VAR or reseller. As long as the disagreements exist, no consumer in this market is going to avoid dirty tricks without reliable and knowledgable vendors to fall back on. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 As bad as Dan Quayle may seem, he'll never compare to Spiro Agnew.
jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May4.125515.8831@pegasus.com>, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: > >WP comes with it's own terminal description database, with it's own (often > >very different from the OS's default) names for terminal types. For > >instance, WP uses "scocons" and "scoconscol" as the type names for the > >SCO console term emulation. > > Why must the MSDOS boys always enlist morons from the wrong side of the > tracks to do their Unix ports for them? :-( > > I'll bet their termcrap database is some inscrutable binary format just > to keep mere mortals away. Actually, I thought it worth mentioning that supporting terminals used with WordPerfect is another thing to watch out for. I don't have the WordPerfect docs handy, but as I remember it, WordPerfect includes its own terminal support, so before you buy WordPerfect to use with your pet ADM-3a, you had better call them and ask if they support it. Just having a terminfo description is not enough. I even had a little trouble getting it to work with Wyse 60's; I found out that you I had to use the "wyse-epc8" (that's not the correct name, but it's close :-) definition, and I also had to change IXANY to IXOFF in the gettydef. That was under Xenix 386. I don't know how much of it applies to UNIX, but it may be valuable info to you if you're planning to set up WordPerfect sometime in the near future. Jay Ts, Director Metran Technology Tampa FL uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) (05/05/91)
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >Anyway, anything running on terminals (or the console in text-only >mode) works just fine under ESIX, thank you. And software packages >that don't play with the console (including most DBMS systems) don't >generally have special versions for different 386 implementations. Some DBMS systems, although they don't play with the console, bypass the filesystem, which may cause incompatibilities. PROGRESS 4GL/RDBMS is such an example. You can't run UNIX Progress on XENIX or the other way around, even though the binaries will execute. This may also explain the need for a different version for SCO, since it does not use the S51K filesystem. -- Pim Zandbergen domain : pim@cti-software.nl CTI Software BV uucp : uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ctisbv!pim Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70 phone : +31 70 3542302 2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands fax : +31 70 3512837
mike@bria.UUCP (mike.stefanik) (05/05/91)
In an article, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: |Why must the MSDOS boys always enlist morons from the wrong side of the |tracks to do their Unix ports for them? :-( | |I'll bet their termcrap database is some inscrutable binary format just |to keep mere mortals away. Indeed, WP does use some funky, obscure database for terminals. I almost heard a tech choke on the other end of the phone when I suggested that they use something akin to termcap, if not termcap itself. -- Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc, Los Angeles | Opinions stated are never realistic Title of the week: Systems Engineer | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If MS-DOS didn't exist, who would UNIX programmers have to make fun of?
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (05/05/91)
In article <26@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: >In article <1991May4.125515.8831@pegasus.com>, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: >> >WP comes with it's own terminal description database, with it's own (often >> >very different from the OS's default) names for terminal types. For >> >instance, WP uses "scocons" and "scoconscol" as the type names for the >> >SCO console term emulation. But you defind the Word Perfect terms with the variable WPTERM, so there isn't much of a conflict. Just have to write a little script to check on console login or not. >> I'll bet their termcrap database is some inscrutable binary format just >> to keep mere mortals away. >Actually, I thought it worth mentioning that supporting terminals used >with WordPerfect is another thing to watch out for. I don't have the >WordPerfect docs handy, but as I remember it, WordPerfect includes its >own terminal support, so before you buy WordPerfect to use with your >pet ADM-3a, you had better call them and ask if they support it. Just >having a terminfo description is not enough. Well I had to get a system running that had no terminal support for the terminal we HAD to use (it was a dual protocol terminal that supported a polled mainframe environment on one port, and an ascii terminal on the Xenix ports. It was close to a standard vt100, but not quite close enough. Luckily the client was upgrading from the 4.2 on Xenix to the 5.0. I Just used the terminal data base editor that came with 4.2 but was not on our copy of 5.0 (got it the week of release - because that's what the client wanted - argh!). I understand the terminal editor is now shipping with the current disk. Copy a description that is close, and go to town. If you have to rely on a manufacturer to do terminal handlers right (whether it's termcap or terminfo, or their own variation) you are going to have some severe disappointments. I have found out that if you have more than one application on a machine the chances are high that something is going to have to be modified. If you have more than 3 I almost guarantee it. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/05/91)
pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) writes: >Some DBMS systems, although they don't play with the console, >bypass the filesystem, which may cause incompatibilities. >PROGRESS 4GL/RDBMS is such an example. You can't run UNIX Progress >on XENIX or the other way around, even though the binaries will >execute. This may also explain the need for a different version >for SCO, since it does not use the S51K filesystem. Interesting... We run Progress on our multiprocessor Arix box - and I wonder if the data files would run under Progress on a 386 Unix box? -- 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}
crawford@ENUXHA.EAS.ASU.EDU (Brian Crawford) (05/05/91)
Subject: Re: wanted: UNIX or clone Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 References: <1991Apr28.155002.7791@unixland.uucp> <24@metran.UUCP> <26@metran.UUCP> In article <26@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes: > Actually, I thought it worth mentioning that supporting terminals used > with WordPerfect is another thing to watch out for. I don't have the > WordPerfect docs handy, but as I remember it, WordPerfect includes its > own terminal support, so before you buy WordPerfect to use with your > pet ADM-3a, you had better call them and ask if they support it. Just > having a terminfo description is not enough. I even had a little trouble > getting it to work with Wyse 60's; I found out that you I had to use the > "wyse-epc8" (that's not the correct name, but it's close :-) definition, > and I also had to change IXANY to IXOFF in the gettydef. Are there groups here dev/passing sharing additions to what WP provides? I tried writing a WP terminal def for tvi920 (the three tvi* 's that come with it don't work on 920), and found that there was a somewhat less of a one-to-one correspondence between WP terminal defs and termcap/terminfo. Comments appreciated either to the group or by email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Crawford INTERNET (current): crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 (permanent): crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (05/06/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >Interesting... We run Progress on our multiprocessor Arix box - >and I wonder if the data files would run under Progress on a >386 Unix box? Not knowing the byte ordering on the Arix box, I would say that that is the area to worry about. There aren't many machines other than intel and DEC that use the little endian format. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc. uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
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
dlucy@srs.UUCP (Douglas Lucy) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May05.130126.16134@nstar.rn.com>, larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > > We run Progress on our multiprocessor Arix box - > and I wonder if the data files would run under Progress on a > 386 Unix box? > Progress data files are pretty compatible; the processor type and system block size are the two things thats must be the same. Um, well, this is true for version 6, not so with previous versions. -- : "It's such a fine line between clever..." : Doug Lucy : : "...and stupid." : S&R Software : : : : UUCP: uunet!aplcomm!aplcen!wb3ffv!imladris!srs!dlucy :
jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May4.160000.18443@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: - In article <832@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) writes: - - >This is the reason we stuck with SCO Unix. I came to the conclusion that if - >any Unix 386 vendor was going to insure backward compatibility with Xenix, - >it would be SCO. This is born out by the fact that we still build and - >execute programs using Xenix 286 libraries that were originally bought for - >Altos Xenix 286 on our SCO Unix machines. - - I have had NO problems running Xenix programs under Esix. - - As a matter of fact, there is an xinstall package for install Xenix - packages on ESIX. Please don't get me wrong. I never meant to imply that other Unix 3.2's didn't support Xenix like they should, I just meant to say I took what I thought was the safest route, and wanted to let others know that it worked. > The Unix V.3.2 is supposed to run Xenix binaries, and it does. > > And binaries compiled under SCO's Xenix work find too. Does Esix have the capability to actually *compile* "Xenix binaries"? This may be the biggest difference. One of our needs is to be able to build programs using vendor-supplied Xenix 286 libraries on a Unix 386 machine (I want to get rid of the Xenix machines, but still use one old Xenix application without the need to pay for an upgrade). SCO Unix allows us to do this, which is among the top reasons we stuck with it. > All of the current 385 Unix release should run the binaries with no > problems. However SCO did do a lot of work to make sure that all those > familiar with Xenix would have no problems and retain a familiarity. This is actually the thing I like least about SCO Unix. We have other "SysV-ish" systems, and I was hoping it would be more similar to them. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc. 615/821-4022 x. 651