Brian_C_McBee@cup.portal.com (09/10/90)
I am pondering buying a 386 machine on which to run UNIX, and I am wondering which UNIX I should buy. ESIX certainly looks like the least expensive SYS V, but what am I giving up if I go with it? I will probably be using the machine for software developement, and to run a Public Access Unix. Will DOS-Merge or something similar run under Esix? Does the TCP/IP include SLIP? Should I just say f*ck it and spend the extra money for SCO? Any and all horror stories appreciated.
su11+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen H. Underwood) (09/10/90)
I worked at a company for about 2 years that used nothing but SCO for it's unix, and while there I ported/attempted to port quite a few standard unix programs. In general I found that the system was awful,, laden with kludges, and a lot of standard packages contain disclaimer lines in them that say "If you are attempting to port this to Xenix, good luck, and tell us if you get it to work." When I purchased my own system, I desided tro try Esix. The support is not quite as good as the support you can buy from SCO, but it's free, and most of us can't afford to buy a support licence. The operating system in general was MUCH more compatable with sysv on the whole, and I was able to port even the most difficult package with relative ease. What you give up are on line man pages, a little memory, and some disk space, as it's not quite as tight as SCO. Also the manuals will cost you some if you don't have access to Unix manuals from elsewhere. And you have to give up the "brand name" of xenix. On the other hand you don't have to give up a large application base, as you can run xenix binaries on an Esix system, and can install most Xenix application packages on Esix (anything that does not require a kernel rebuild.) Personally I would rather be running Esix than Xenix, even if they cost the same. (diskclaimer - I don't work for Esix, and don't know anyone who does, I just like their product.) Stephen H. Underwood The Heechee The Nephron su11@andrew.cmu.edu "The colliflour has nothing to say to you."
oscar@eismond.uucp (Carsten Tschach) (09/12/90)
Brian_C_McBee@cup.portal.com writes: >I am pondering buying a 386 machine on which to run UNIX, and I am wondering >which UNIX I should buy. ESIX certainly looks like the least expensive SYS V, >but what am I giving up if I go with it? I will probably be using the machine >for software developement, and to run a Public Access Unix. Will DOS-Merge >or something similar run under Esix? Does the TCP/IP include SLIP? Should >I just say f*ck it and spend the extra money for SCO? Any and all horror Nooooooooooo, not SCO - it's so buggy !!! Just try Interactive Version 2.2 - I thought it is much better ! -- "Suddenly there comes a blinding flash....and then comes OSCAR !" INTERNET: tschach@kristall.chemie.fu-berlin.dbp.de UUCP: oscar@eismond.uucp ...!unido!tmpmbx!einoed!eismond!oscar
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) (09/16/90)
As quoted from <C0CJ1QF@eismond.uucp> by oscar@eismond.uucp (Carsten Tschach): +--------------- | Brian_C_McBee@cup.portal.com writes: | | >or something similar run under Esix? Does the TCP/IP include SLIP? Should | >I just say f*ck it and spend the extra money for SCO? Any and all horror | | Nooooooooooo, not SCO - it's so buggy !!! | Just try Interactive Version 2.2 - I thought it is much better ! +--------------- Never mind "buggy" --- SCO UNIX has C2-much [ ;-) ] security for most users. ESPECIALLY on a public access site, unless you plan to be a fascist sysadmin. ("Fascist"? Not even Hitler was as bad as C2 security can be --- and configuring it is a major pain, even with the sysadmsh.) ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (09/17/90)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: > Never mind "buggy" --- SCO UNIX has C2-much [ ;-) ] security for most users. > ESPECIALLY on a public access site, unless you plan to be a fascist sysadmin. > ("Fascist"? Not even Hitler was as bad as C2 security can be --- and > configuring it is a major pain, even with the sysadmsh.) Huh? When you install SCO Unix, you are given the choice of whether or not you want C2 security enabled. Even if you choose "yes", you can still disable it later on. Use the /etc/relax command. Note that once you go from C2->regular, you may not be able to get back to C2 without reinstalling the system, though. -- Marc Unangst | "da-DE-DA: I am sorry, the country you have mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | dialed is not in service. Please check the ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju | number and try again." -- Telecom Kuwait
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) (09/19/90)
As quoted from <5J9LP1w163w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> by mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst): +--------------- | allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: | > Never mind "buggy" --- SCO UNIX has C2-much [ ;-) ] security for most users. | > ESPECIALLY on a public access site, unless you plan to be a fascist sysadmin. | > ("Fascist"? Not even Hitler was as bad as C2 security can be --- and | > configuring it is a major pain, even with the sysadmsh.) | | Huh? When you install SCO Unix, you are given the choice of whether | or not you want C2 security enabled. Even if you choose "yes", you | can still disable it later on. Use the /etc/relax command. +--------------- You missed a thread from about a month ago. I *have* relaxed security; I installed it that way. Unfortunately, this didn't stop it from screaming about security violations when I attempted to add a new shell to the sysadmsh list of configurable login shells. Among other things. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR/KT on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (09/21/90)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: > You missed a thread from about a month ago. I *have* relaxed security; I > installed it that way. Unfortunately, this didn't stop it from screaming > about security violations when I attempted to add a new shell to the sysadmsh > list of configurable login shells. Among other things. Oh, you use sysadmsh. That explains a lot. One thing I learned is the first month of ODT is to stay as far away from sysadmsh as possible. I do most modifications to the password database by editing the authentication files under /tcb/files/auth, the /etc/passwd file, and the various files under /etc/auth. /tcb/bin/authck is useful for checking that I didn't forget a file somewhere along the line and that everything checks out. sysadmsh may be good for the novice sysadmin who doesn't know a password file from device driver. But it's an absolute pain in the ass when you know what you're doing, and need to get it done quickly and efficiently. -- Marc Unangst | "da-DE-DA: I am sorry, the country you have mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | dialed is not in service. Please check the ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju | number and try again." -- Telecom Kuwait
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (09/22/90)
In article <gL3TP2w163w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: }allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: }> about security violations when I attempted to add a new shell to the sysadmsh } }Oh, you use sysadmsh. That explains a lot. } }One thing I learned is the first month of ODT is to stay as far away }from sysadmsh as possible. I do most modifications to the password }database by editing the authentication files under /tcb/files/auth, }the /etc/passwd file, and the various files under /etc/auth. }/tcb/bin/authck is useful for checking that I didn't forget a file }somewhere along the line and that everything checks out. } }sysadmsh may be good for the novice sysadmin who doesn't know a }password file from device driver. But it's an absolute pain in the Amen. It only took me 2 minutes to figure out I really didn't like sysadmsh when it wouldn't let me have my usual login id. "sl" is only two characters long and it wanted a minimum of three. It didn't take too long to find the spots to fix :-) -- Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc. ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (09/22/90)
As quoted from <gL3TP2w163w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> by mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst): +--------------- | allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/KT) writes: | > You missed a thread from about a month ago. I *have* relaxed security; I | > installed it that way. Unfortunately, this didn't stop it from screaming | > about security violations when I attempted to add a new shell to the sysadmsh | > list of configurable login shells. Among other things. | | Oh, you use sysadmsh. That explains a lot. +--------------- Understand, please, that I do *not* use sysadmsh when I can find the documentation to do it otherwise. I *do*, however, work for a VAR... and value-added, for us, includes adding things to the system. And we don't expect our (generally small) clients to understand UNIX well enough to hack around with the raw system. And ESPECIALLY not with C2 security! ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
josef@nixpbe.UUCP (Moellers) (09/24/90)
In <gL3TP2w163w@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: [stuff deleted] >sysadmsh may be good for the novice sysadmin who doesn't know a >password file from device driver. But it's an absolute pain in the >ass when you know what you're doing, and need to get it done quickly >and efficiently. I couldn't have said it better. Comment of one of my colleagues: "Correct!" -- | Josef Moellers | c/o Nixdorf Computer AG | | USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.com | Abt. PXD-S14 | | !USA: mollers.pad@nixdorf.de | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring | | Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (09/26/90)
su11+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen H. Underwood) writes: > I worked at a company for about 2 years that used nothing but SCO for > it's unix, and while there I ported/attempted to port quite a few > standard unix programs. In general I found that the system was awful,, > laden with kludges, and a lot of standard packages contain disclaimer > lines in them that say "If you are attempting to port this to Xenix, > good luck, and tell us if you get it to work." There's a difference between SCO Unix and SCO Xenix. Xenix is an awful almost-Unix clone from Microsoft. SCO Unix is a product that, with the replacement and/or removal of some of its "features" (my personal suggestions are replacing MMDF with Smail 3.1.19, and making it possible to turn off the C2 security and replace it with the normal /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files), is a fine OS. When SCO Unix 3.2 v2 finally comes out, I think they should have most of the bugs fixed... The shop where I work sells both ESIX and SCO stuff, and I can tell you that I prefer SCO Unix to ESIX. -- Marc Unangst | "da-DE-DA: I am sorry, the country you have mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | dialed is not in service. Please check the ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju | number and try again." -- Telecom Kuwait
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (09/26/90)
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > Xenix is an > awful almost-Unix clone from Microsoft. Wrong. Xenix is a port of *REAL UNIX*(TM) by Microsoft. To quote the build program from C News: v7 Version 7 (4.1BSD is pretty close, ditto Xenix) Now, if Henry Spencer thinks that Xenix is pretty close to v7 functionalilty, that's good enough for me! And v7 is, after all, the One True Unix. So: Xenix is a port of Unix (v7 and Sys III kernels have variously been used as the porting base for different versions of Xenix, I think) and it behaves enough like v7 for most applications. This means it's an "almost-Unix clone" ? Sorry. No. Wrong answer. Now, it is true that some of the Xenix utilities are <expletive deleted> like the Microsoft C Compiler (barf!) -- calling it a C compiler may be a little ambitious, but you can change that, can't you? e.g. I use the GNU C compiler myself. To bring a little relevance to this newsgroup, it might be useful to remind Mr Unangst that a modern Xenix (since he did mention SCO's name) in SCO Xenix 386 of the current variety will acutally execute System V/386 COFF binaries as well as Xenix 86, 286 *and* 386 ones of assorted kinds. Indeed, with the latest maintenance supplement, cpio(1) *IS* the exact same COFF binary that SCO ship with their System V/386. Xenix, SCO and Microsoft may well have problems, but "Xenix not being Unix" isn't one of them. Please stop, desist and refrain from spreading misinformation. Thank you and good morning. -- ronald@robobar.co.uk | +44 81 991 1142 (O) | +44 71 229 7741 (H) | YELL! "Nothing sucks like a VAX" -- confirmed after recent radiator burst! Hit 'R' <RETURN> to continue .....
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/27/90)
>There's a difference between SCO Unix and SCO Xenix. Xenix is an >awful almost-Unix clone from Microsoft. A clone with some tissue from the original, given that the original Xenix started with V7 UNIX from AT&T, and had other AT&T code from S3 and S5 put into later releases - it's *NOT* a from-scratch look-alike.
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (09/28/90)
In article <wauvR4q00Vor43q0VZ@andrew.cmu.edu> su11+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen H. Underwood) writes: >I worked at a company for about 2 years that used nothing but SCO for >it's unix, and while there I ported/attempted to port quite a few >standard unix programs. In general I found that the system was awful,, >laden with kludges, and a lot of standard packages contain disclaimer >lines in them that say "If you are attempting to port this to Xenix, >good luck, and tell us if you get it to work." > Well, since you have confused UNIX and Xenix, in the above. Can you make the same claim about SCO UNIX and ESIX. SCO UNIX and SCO XENIX are not the same animal. -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (09/28/90)
>>There's a difference between SCO Unix and SCO Xenix. Xenix is an >>awful almost-Unix clone from Microsoft. > >A clone with some tissue from the original, given that the original >Xenix started with V7 UNIX from AT&T, and had other AT&T code from S3 >and S5 put into later releases - it's *NOT* a from-scratch look-alike. Perhaps not, but from the gratuitous differences and misfeatures, it sure did a good job of looking like a bastard-clone the few times I tried porting something to it. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
inkari@batgirl.hut.fi (Juha Inkari) (09/29/90)
I am thinking of buying a 386 (svr4?) unix, which ones are there and price/performance information would be appreciated. (Replies could be mailed, and Ill post a summary) Thanks, -- /* Juha Inkari inkari@batgirl.hut.fi */
flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu (04/03/91)
Seeking advice which (whose) UNIX to run on a recently received A.L.R. "BusinessVEISA" 486 box (25 MHz, 40 Meg HD, currently using only DOS 3.21), soon to be outfitted with both a WD 8-bit Ethernet card and an antique HP 82973A HP-IL Interface card. Cost is important -- the lower the better -- as is size -- the smaller the better -- but I also want to avoid gotcha's involving the two add-in cards. Best mail me direct as fejlinton@attmail.com or fejlinton@mcimail.com . On sufficient request, I'll summarize here in a month. Thanks *very* much! -- Fred