jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) (09/25/90)
Last night I encountered a problem while compiling/running some
'standard usenet software' (ie conquer 4.3) to wit:
ESIX would cough up "Floating Exception - Core Dumped" while
executing the update module. A quick (?!) session with sdb
revealed that the offending code was:
A->smove /= 2; NOTE: smove is an unsigned character
After a number of non-productive gestures (changing FP emulators etc.)
I found that replacing the code with:
A->smove = A->smove / 2;
Worked just fine. I am the last person in the world to be a compiler
bug chaser, so if anyone can shed some light on the subject it may
save us all some core-dumping later on.
Be Excellent to Each Other
- Jon
--
J.D. McCown - RCSG Director - Senate of Pennsylvania
psuvax1!eds1!jdm1 (this space intentionally "Your lupins or your life!"
jdm1@eds1.eds.com filled with this text) - Dennis Moorebstrong@sleepy.bmd.trw.com (04/15/91)
I was wondering if anyone who has purchased ESIX SVR4 has any comments/ insults/praises about it. We are considering purchasing for file serving purchases. Also, to anyone, what other companies besides SCO, Interactive, Microport, Intel and ESIX now or will offer SVR4 for 386 hosts and which do you prefer? I don't mean to start any flame wars, I'm just trying to do a little checking around. THANKS for any help. Bryan Strong - TRW * Ogden, UT * USA email - bstrong@oz.bmd.trw.com --------------------------------------
cmurcko@Topsail.ORG (Chuck Murcko) (04/16/91)
Many or most of us who have ordered it are still waiting. ESIX hasn't shipped yet. The last date they told my dealer was 3rd week April. He & I both agreed that meant mid-May. Apparently, ESIX ships new products all at once instead of trickling them out. Maybe there's a beta tester out there who could shed some light on this? -- Chuck Murcko The Topsail Group 538 E. Church Rd., Elkins Park, PA 19117 Internet: cmurcko@topsail.Topsail.ORG UUCP: ...!uunet!lgnp1!gvlv2!topsail!cmurcko
dj@micromuse.co.uk (dj) (04/16/91)
In article <1332.28096bc1@sleepy.bmd.trw.com> bstrong@oz.bmd.trw.com writes: > >I was wondering if anyone who has purchased ESIX SVR4 has any comments/ >insults/praises about it. We are considering purchasing for file serving >purchases. Also, to anyone, what other companies besides SCO, Interactive, >Microport, Intel and ESIX now or will offer SVR4 for 386 hosts and which >do you prefer? But a minor correction.... SCO are not offering SVR4 and have not committed to it. And the Intel effort is now folded into the Interactive SVR4 operation. >Bryan Strong - TRW * Ogden, UT * USA >email - bstrong@oz.bmd.trw.com >-------------------------------------- dj@micromuse.co.uk "See this big mouth? It's my big mouth"
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) (04/17/91)
As quoted from <1332.28096bc1@sleepy.bmd.trw.com> by bstrong@sleepy.bmd.trw.com: +--------------- | purchases. Also, to anyone, what other companies besides SCO, Interactive, | Microport, Intel and ESIX now or will offer SVR4 for 386 hosts and which +--------------- SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a rather rude awakening.... ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 2m, 220, 440, 1200 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (QRT on HF until local problems fixed) America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/17/91)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: >SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a >rather rude awakening.... Isn't that the truth - the SCO rep in Chicago told me the other day that SVR4 is so buggy that they won't get involved with it for quite a while. -- 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}
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (04/18/91)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: > SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a > rather rude awakening.... You might want to re-think that in context of the ACE "alliance". One can argue whether it's good, or wise, or whether it will succeed, but they seem to have something in mind. (I.e., they didn't just blow off V.4 with no other plan in mind.) -- 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@alembic.acs.com (Bill Hatch) (04/18/91)
In article <1332.28096bc1@sleepy.bmd.trw.com> bstrong@oz.bmd.trw.com writes: > >I was wondering if anyone who has purchased ESIX SVR4 has any comments/ >insults/praises about it. We are considering purchasing for file serving >purchases. Also, to anyone, what other companies besides SCO, Interactive, >Microport, Intel and ESIX now or will offer SVR4 for 386 hosts and which >do you prefer? I don't mean to start any flame wars, I'm just trying to >do a little checking around. THANKS for any help. We have been using Intel V.4 on a HP Vectra RS/C 20 Mhz for about 2 months. The principal use is as an integrated ANSI C software development system with multiple character terminals. The hw configuration is: 10 Mb RAM 300 Mb HP SCSI external disk 250 Mb WangTek SCSI cartrige tape 12 Port Megaport i/o controller HP LaserJet II printer For our intended purposes with 1 or 2 users this system has worked fine, especially considering that Intel is about $1000 cheaper than the competition. G++1.37 and GCC1.37.1 with the Mike Bloom Coff patches also work well on this system. On the down side we have noted the following problems which do not immediatly impact us: - There is a conflict between Xwindows and the Megaport driver - you can run either Xwindows or multiple terminals but not both. - All of the functions in Xlib appear to have been renamed to have 14 character (or shorter) names as opposed to the long names used in some public domain X source that we tried to compile. - The UCB file system had a tendency to crash - we just reloaded with S5 and the problems went away. - There is a hard limit of 2 Mb on file size. I tried to rebuild the kernel to remove this restriction but was not successful. - A Logitech 3 button mouse was required for Xwindows. - The upper limit on addressable RAM is 16Mb. These are problems that I would expect to see resolved in later releases. -- Bill Hatch (301)470-3839(w) (301)441-1675(h) Coleman Research, 14504 Greenview Drive, Laurel MD 20708 All opinions expressed are my own - dont blame my employer or alembic systems
peter@cutmcvax.cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Peter Wemm) (04/18/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: >>SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a >>rather rude awakening.... >Isn't that the truth - the SCO rep in Chicago told me the other >day that SVR4 is so buggy that they won't get involved with it for >quite a while. Yeah, just like a local rep told me that SVR4 does nothing more than SVR3, apart from extra security.... -- Peter Wemm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ peter@cs.curtin.edu.au (Home) +61-9-450-5243 Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers. (Dan Zerkle)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/19/91)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >You might want to re-think that in context of the ACE "alliance". One can >argue whether it's good, or wise, or whether it will succeed, but they seem >to have something in mind. (I.e., they didn't just blow off V.4 with no >other plan in mind.) I was told that they (SCO) are the standard and that they (again SCO) will decide what will be the operating system of choice in the future. They (SCO) feel that SVR4 is to buggy at present - and they have no interest in it. -- 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) (04/19/91)
bill@alembic.acs.com (Bill Hatch) writes: >We have been using Intel V.4 on a HP Vectra RS/C 20 Mhz for about 2 months. >The principal use is as an integrated ANSI C software development system >with multiple character terminals. The hw configuration is: >For our intended purposes with 1 or 2 users this system has worked fine, >especially considering that Intel is about $1000 cheaper than the competition. Did you check into Dell SysVR4? Dell is 1295 for unlimited users - and they support the product quite well. We received email from dell on Tuesday announcing a problem in the AT&T distributed rel 2.0 source code and wanted our address to send a fix - the fix arrived this morning (Thursday). Talk about service - heck - I know of others still waiting on their security fix from ISC.. -- 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}
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (04/19/91)
From article <1991Apr17.214234.27954@ico.isc.com>, by rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn): > allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: > >> SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a >> rather rude awakening.... > > You might want to re-think that in context of the ACE "alliance". One can > argue whether it's good, or wise, or whether it will succeed, but they seem > to have something in mind. (I.e., they didn't just blow off V.4 with no > other plan in mind.) With microsh*t writing the "portable" operating system it should be bootable by 2000 or so... Let's see, ACE is supposed to have a "full" system sometime in '92. Can use either intel or mips chips... Can use either EISA or Turbo (DEC) bus... Can use either NT OS/3 (third of an operating system) or SCO Unix... yeah, it looks like ACE is certainly consolidating all the platforms down to a usable standard. Looks like in this case ACE has a value of 1 - low card out.... john gay.
paul@frcs.UUCP (Paul Nash) (04/19/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > > Isn't that the truth - the SCO rep in Chicago told me the other > day that SVR4 is so buggy that they won't get involved with it for > quite a while. As if _their_ Pseudnix V.3 is (was?) un-buggy! I haven't touched it since I trie dthe first release, but this sounds like the pot calling the saucepan black! At least there is more than one organisation working at fixing the bugs in V.4. ---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=--- Paul Nash Free Range Computer Systems cc paul@frcs.UUCP ...!uunet!m2xenix!frcs!paul
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr18.223603.1193@digi.lonestar.org> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes: >Let's see, ACE is supposed to have a "full" system sometime in '92. >Can use either intel or mips chips... >Can use either EISA or Turbo (DEC) bus... >Can use either NT OS/3 (third of an operating system) or SCO Unix... I read today that there was not going to be binary compatiblity between the two OSes running on the same CPU. So this "standard" requires four different versions of each application... -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr17.214234.27954@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >> SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a >> rather rude awakening.... >You might want to re-think that in context of the ACE "alliance". One can >argue whether it's good, or wise, or whether it will succeed, but they seem >to have something in mind. (I.e., they didn't just blow off V.4 with no >other plan in mind.) I don't think much of this "alliance". IMO, this group exists because Microsoft doesn't want the RISC market dominated by UNIX (or OSF, or anything resembling UNIX). Now that the workstation marketplace is maturing and software is becoming available, Gates&Co want in. Here, SCO is a minor, maybe even insignificant player, except to give credibility to the launch. I personally hope that Microsoft has as much success creating a market for OS/2 on RISC systems as it has had to date with OS/2 on Intel 80x86 systems. ("Ah, why would you want that ratty ol' MIPS compiler, when you can have our new Microsoft C?") :-) :-) :-) -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 Q: Why do Los Angeles policemen carry billyclubs? ---- A: Beats me....
lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr18.002451.1044@alembic.acs.com> bill@alembic.acs.com (Bill Hatch) writes: > >We have been using Intel V.4 on a HP Vectra RS/C 20 Mhz for about 2 months. [much omitted] >- There is a hard limit of 2 Mb on file size. I tried to rebuild the > kernel to remove this restriction but was not successful. Are you certain you don't have a low process ulimit that's being inherited? If this is true it's an intolerable problem. This is smaller than a run-of-the-mill compressed tar or cpio archive containing a free program's source: (perl, dmake, RCS, etc.) >- The upper limit on addressable RAM is 16Mb. Most 386 boards only handle 16 megabytes. (I.e., the support circutry only can deal with that; obviously the i386 can address far more.) Still, this seems like a restriction that could be limiting, espcially with a multi-user i486 system. -- Len Reed Holos Software, Inc. Voice: (404) 496-1358 UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr
goykhman_a@apollo.HP.COM (Alex Goykhman) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr17.013415.23930@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA) writes: >As quoted from <1332.28096bc1@sleepy.bmd.trw.com> by bstrong@sleepy.bmd.trw.com: >+--------------- >| purchases. Also, to anyone, what other companies besides SCO, Interactive, >| Microport, Intel and ESIX now or will offer SVR4 for 386 hosts and which >+--------------- > >SCO apparently doesn't want SVR4. I suspect they're going to be in for a >rather rude awakening.... As far as I know, SC0 is an OSF member. > >++Brandon >-- >Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 2m, 220, 440, 1200 >Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (QRT on HF until local problems fixed) >America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] >uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH Alex Goykhman goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com OS Technology Lab, OSSD/C mit-eddie!apollo!goykhman_a Hewlett-Packard, Inc. (508) 256-0176 x2610