jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/07/90)
I'm getting ready to put together a Unix System V/386 System and I need to
make the decision of whether or not to go ISA or MCA with respect to the
system bus. The only problem I'm faced if going the MCA route is if ESIX
supports MCA. The machine will be handling a lot of I/O and it very well
justifies going the MCA route. One of the reasons I'm looking at ESIX is the
availability of NFS and YP (now NIS) since the 386 machine may very well be
put on a network of Suns. The target machine for ESIX would be an ALR
MicroFlex 3300. The bulk of the storage would be handled via a MicroNet MCA
SCSI host adaptor and an Imprimis Wren Runner II or a pair of Wren Runners.
MicroNet claims that their SCSI host adaptor is device driver compatable with
the Adaptec SCSI host adaptors. Ok, I can buy that since I've dealt with
MicroNet enough times. Only problem I forsee is how well ESIX supports the
MCA bus.
Other hardware tacked on to the 386 box would be a DigiBoard and a WD ethernet
board. I will not use anything generic for this configuration.
So what's the verdict from those experienced with ESIX and MCA? Will it work?
// JCA
/*
**--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for
** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out
** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here!
** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
**--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*/cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/07/90)
In article <5485@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >I'm getting ready to put together a Unix System V/386 System and I need to >make the decision of whether or not to go ISA or MCA with respect to the >system bus. The only problem I'm faced if going the MCA route is if ESIX >supports MCA. The machine will be handling a lot of I/O and it very well You also might want to check into the EISA bus. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/09/90)
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >In article <5485@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>I'm getting ready to put together a Unix System V/386 System and I need to >>make the decision of whether or not to go ISA or MCA with respect to the >>system bus. The only problem I'm faced if going the MCA route is if ESIX >>supports MCA. The machine will be handling a lot of I/O and it very well > >You also might want to check into the EISA bus. I will say this once. I already know about EISA. I already know about the potential problems with EISA. To put it bluntly... I DON'T WANT EISA! After EISA has become more established, then I will consider going EISA,l but not until then. What scares me about the EISA bus is that there are still a LOT of quirks with EISA machines. HP's 486 with EISA bus will ONLY work with HP's EISA cards. I don't want to be a lab rat. MCA has proven itself to me, and I want a proven design for this machine. So instead of sending me a bunch of junk about looking into EISA, how about some kind soul sending me information on ESIX and MCA. Yes, I am annoyed because of the fact I don't take kindly to people telling what *I* want when I know what I want. You're not me. I know what this 386 will be doing which is why I want MCA as opposed to ISA or EISA. It's bad enough that I get this from vendors and distributors, but on the net as well? // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) (11/10/90)
In article <5531@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>>I'm getting ready to put together a Unix System V/386 System and I need to >>>make the decision of whether or not to go ISA or MCA with respect to the >>>system bus. The only problem I'm faced if going the MCA route is if ESIX >>>supports MCA. The machine will be handling a lot of I/O and it very well [...] >So instead of sending me a bunch of junk about looking into EISA, how about >some kind soul sending me information on ESIX and MCA. Who could resist such a polite request? But for the benefit of everyone, ESIX is not certified for use on MCA and the 3.2 version will not be tested. The 3.1 was tested and certified, but nobody bought it, so ESIX didn't bother with 3.2. They say they will with 4.0, but not until late '91 or early '92. They'll do ISA, EISA, MCA. ESIX will be demonstrating their 4.0 (which is shipping "first quarter") at COMDEX if anyone is interested in taking a look at it. -- Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/10/90)
In article <5531@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > >Yes, I am annoyed because of the fact I don't take kindly to people telling >what *I* want when I know what I want. You're not me. I know what this 386 >will be doing which is why I want MCA as opposed to ISA or EISA. I didn't tell you what you want. YOU didn't make it clear that you had even considered EISA in your original post, so a suggestion that maybe EISA would satisfy your needs was considered helpfull by at least one person who wanted to help you. >It's bad enough that I get this from vendors and distributors, but on the net >as well? What you get on the net is help from people at no cost and many times it is better than the info you will get from vendors and distributors. The attitude you have show in this response to a simple suggestion will probably make it less likely that people out here will want to lift a hand to help you. BTW - the suggestion that HP's EISA stuff doesn't work with other EISA stuff may be beside the point. HP is notoriously proprietary and I wouldn't put it past them to do something with thier EISA implementation to make it proprietary. An article in the current issue of Personal Workstation discusses the rumour of non-compatible EISA stuff and states that all of PWs testing with different EISA parts has shown them to be compatible. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (11/11/90)
> >But for the benefit of everyone, ESIX is not certified for use on MCA and the >3.2 version will not be tested. The 3.1 was tested and certified, but nobody >bought it, so ESIX didn't bother with 3.2. They say they will with 4.0, but >not until late '91 or early '92. They'll do ISA, EISA, MCA. Taken somewhat out of context, but "for the benefit of everyone" is fitting. And it's good news. Down with proprietary buses. MCA doesn't gain you much (if anything), except a higher price and fewer compatible boards and software. There are some theoretical advantages, but they don't pan out, at least not with the available hardware and software. The old ISA bus is not a limiting factor in increased performance, yet. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) (11/12/90)
In <5531@crash.cts.com>, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) wrote: > After EISA has become more established, then I will consider going > EISA,l but not until then. What scares me about the EISA bus is that > there are still a LOT of quirks with EISA machines. HP's 486 with > EISA bus will ONLY work with HP's EISA cards. I don't want to be a > lab rat. MCA has proven itself to me, and I want a proven design for > this machine. EISA machines have been around for a while now, and seem to work quite well. I'd be very surprised if HP can't run off-the-shelf EISA cards. Such things do exist in enough quantity to test a bus implementation. Also, there don't appear to be so many quirks in EISA machines I have seen. MCA is obviously mature at this point, but not nearly as well supported (since it has this mechanical quirk that prevents ISA cards from inserting :-). Dell unix is guaranteed to support Dell EISA machines. -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Dell Computer Co 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759 512-338-8789
floydf@iphase.UUCP (Floyd Ferguson ENG) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov10.125312.10030@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >An article in the current issue of Personal Workstation discusses the rumour >of non-compatible EISA stuff and states that all of PWs testing with different >EISA parts has shown them to be compatible. I am writing device drivers for our EISA SCSI adapter for UNIX and Novell, so I am very familiar with the compatibility issues of 1 controller across N systems, but not so much with the 1 system across N controller issue. The vast majority of "compatibility" issues I have seen have been related to the configuration process. EISA provides an extremely powerful software based configuration mechanism which must be correctly used in order for peripheral boards to function. Sometimes the correct usage is not the most obvious usage. Most of these problems arise from the increased power EISA provides to bus-master peripherals, and the resulting increase in system complexity. Overall, once the system is properly configured, I have seen no more compatibility problems with EISA than exist with ISA, and I suspect that the majority of the "rumors" stem from difficulties in configuring products into an EISA system. Incidentally, the EISA bus is _very_ fast, and outperforms the VME backplane found on not a few other systems. I would be very suprised if EISA did not displace quite a bit of VME, particularly as the Intel based systems begin encroaching on the low- and mid-end mini's. Floyd Ferguson uunet!iphase!floydf
jde@everex.uucp (-Jeff Ellis()) (11/14/90)
In article <5531@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >So instead of sending me a bunch of junk about looking into EISA, how about >some kind soul sending me information on ESIX and MCA. I am sorry to tell you this but ESIX will not run on MCA. We worked on a MCA version back with 3.0 but it never went to market. The PS/2 computers at that time were not stable so the project never made it. As far as I know we do not have a MCA version planed, in SYSV4.0 EISA support is planed but I do not know when we will have an ESIA version also. -- Jeff Ellis ESIX SYSTEM/V UUCP:uunet!zardoz!everex!jde US Mail: 1923 St. Andrew Place, Santa Ana, CA 92705
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (11/16/90)
In article <297@iphase.UUCP> floydf@iphase.UUCP (Floyd Ferguson ENG) writes: >In article <1990Nov10.125312.10030@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >>An article in the current issue of Personal Workstation discusses the rumour >>of non-compatible EISA stuff and states that all of PWs testing with different >>EISA parts has shown them to be compatible. > >The vast majority of "compatibility" issues I have seen have been related >to the configuration process. EISA provides an extremely powerful software >based configuration mechanism which must be correctly used in order for >peripheral boards to function. Sometimes the correct usage is not the most >obvious usage. > Here here! This is especially true when certain OS vendors choose to leave important configuration issues out of their EISA supplement documentation. I intend to eventually post a summary of the problems/issues incountered during our installation of the SCO Unix/386 product on the Compaq SystemPro and the solutions/workarounds that we are currently implementing, as soon as all the problems are solved. Which brings me to a question: Since I haven't read news for a while, has there been any more mention of an EISA mailing list or newsgroup ??? -- uucp: holston!barton pseudo: barton@holston.UUCP
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/17/90)
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: >Here here! This is especially true when certain OS vendors choose to >leave important configuration issues out of their EISA supplement >documentation. > >I intend to eventually post a summary of the problems/issues incountered >during our installation of the SCO Unix/386 product on the Compaq >SystemPro and the solutions/workarounds that we are currently >implementing, as soon as all the problems are solved. > >Which brings me to a question: > >Since I haven't read news for a while, has there been any more >mention of an EISA mailing list or newsgroup ??? One of the things I have done is rule out getting ESIX for the system that I'm proposing in the next few months. Reason being that security hole that was mentioned awhile back. Since the machine in question will be used as a mailhost and gateway, it would be very foolish to use an OS with even the HINT of a security hole. Sorry Everex, but if you had a better attitude about fixing things that were broken, then I would reconsider. Now I'm looking at SCO, ISC, Dell, Intel, and UHC. One of the reasons I was hard nosed on ESIX was the fact that NIS (previously known as Yellow Pages) is available for ESIX. Would have made things rather simple with respect to Sun and PC-NFS integration. Next question, which Unix vendors (besides Everex) have NIS (Yellow Pages) available? // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (11/18/90)
In article <5683@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > >One of the things I have done is rule out getting ESIX for the system that I'm >proposing in the next few months. Reason being that security hole that was >mentioned awhile back. Since the machine in question will be used as a >mailhost and gateway, it would be very foolish to use an OS with even the >HINT of a security hole. Why don't you just using Esix and install smail in place of sendmail? The sendmail problem doesn't seem like enough of a reason to slam the door shut on Esix. The things I've heard about Interactive and SCO do *NOT* lead me to believe they are all so great themselves... It seems that ALL of the available products have their own unique problems. -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill@unixland.uucp, bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix - Esix SYSVR3 - (508) 655-3848 other: heiser@world.std.com Public Access Unix (617) 739-9753
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (11/18/90)
On 17 Nov 90 04:29:28 GMT, jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) said:
jca> One of the things I have done is rule out getting ESIX for the
jca> system that I'm proposing in the next few months. Reason being
jca> that security hole that was mentioned awhile back. Since the
jca> machine in question will be used as a mailhost and gateway, it
jca> would be very foolish to use an OS with even the HINT of a security
jca> hole.
So right! You remind me of what somebody else says, that the only way to
make a computer secure is to place the power switch in the OFF position.
But of course you are being intentionally amusing here -- what you write
above either demonstrates either a jocular attitude or complete
misunderstanding of the problems of mailhost and gateway security, and I
cannot believe the latter option.
If you were not joking, your statement above would be a classic example
of the well known principle that the greatest security hazard is a false
sense of security, and the worst possible false sense of security is
thinking that security is more of a tools than of a people problem.
For example, by way of not mentioning it, you are surely obliquely
making fun of SCO Unix, a system whose security system is so complex and
obnoxius that most people disable it in haphazard ways by default,
possibly leaving themselves less protected than if it were not there to
be bypassed!
Note that in the hands of a system administrator with a sure grasp
of security theory and practice, and a lot of patience and self
discipline, as it is obvious you really are, SCO Unix C2 security
is a tool that can indeed provide substantial added protection.
You are also probably making also fun of all those system administrators
that still use sendmail (whether or not the DEBUG option is compiled in
by default) instead of smail3, which is far simpler to configure and
thus probably more reliable, not to mention that you have sources and
can apply corrections instantaneously (the same advantage of course
applies to the freely available UCB sendmail, but here you feign
ignorance of its availability, and pretend you have to stick with the
manufacturer's binary, over which you have no control).
jca> Sorry Everex, but if you had a better attitude about fixing things
jca> that were broken, then I would reconsider. Now I'm looking at SCO,
jca> ISC, Dell, Intel, and UHC.
Hahahaha. Even better! You are a good sport. Here you must be making fun
at some of these other vendors; probably you are thinking of how much
time (months, years!) after patches were posted in this newgroups did
any of these release a version of the filesystem that did not have the
inode allocation bug. Also, your reference at UHC means that you are
pretending to consider SVR4, which is just out, and therefore presumably
a poor choice if one wants a stable and well debugged system for
reliability and security.
I must confess that this way of poking fun at manufacturers and this
audience pretending you are naive and do not understand the issues is
very amusing. But of course you give away the whole show in the
signature:
jca> ... | Small memory model only for
jca> ... | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out
jca> ... | of here!
Here you surpass yourself in subtlety: your irony here is that *all*
UNIXes on 386 allow you to run programs _only in the small memory model_
(even if the UNIX kernel actually runs in the large memory model, in a
small way :->).
Here your sarcasm is based on pretending that you don't know that the
small memory model on the 386 has 32 bit offsets and the large one 48
bit pointers, instead of 16 and 32 bits as on the 286!
As far as I know only Intel's iRMX allows you to run large memory
model (segmented, 48 bit pointers) programs on the 386.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukjca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/19/90)
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >For example, by way of not mentioning it, you are surely obliquely >making fun of SCO Unix, a system whose security system is so complex and >obnoxius that most people disable it in haphazard ways by default, >possibly leaving themselves less protected than if it were not there to I will not buy SCO Unix until SCO makes up their bloody mind about what they're going to do once and for all about Xenix. Their sales division says one thing and their tech support division says another. >You are also probably making also fun of all those system administrators >that still use sendmail (whether or not the DEBUG option is compiled in >by default) instead of smail3, which is far simpler to configure and >thus probably more reliable, not to mention that you have sources and >can apply corrections instantaneously (the same advantage of course >applies to the freely available UCB sendmail, but here you feign >ignorance of its availability, and pretend you have to stick with the >manufacturer's binary, over which you have no control). I hate sendmail. My hate relationship with sendmail stems from having a Sun SPARCstation 1 on my desk at work. It is true that I could chuck ESIX's sendmail for smail 2.5 or smail 3, but if a vendor will let such bugs go out the door (and more bugs have been found with ESIX) that I find to be indicative of the support I'll get from the vendor. I'm not buying "yea, it's broken alright, tough (*bleep*)." That doesn't cut it. >jca> Sorry Everex, but if you had a better attitude about fixing things >jca> that were broken, then I would reconsider. Now I'm looking at SCO, >jca> ISC, Dell, Intel, and UHC. > >Hahahaha. Even better! You are a good sport. Here you must be making fun >at some of these other vendors; probably you are thinking of how much >time (months, years!) after patches were posted in this newgroups did >any of these release a version of the filesystem that did not have the >inode allocation bug. Also, your reference at UHC means that you are >pretending to consider SVR4, which is just out, and therefore presumably >a poor choice if one wants a stable and well debugged system for >reliability and security. I am considering all WORKING options. I don't have the buy the machine and flavor of Unix for another month (at least). This is the information gathering phase. Every Unix vendor does it differently, it's just a matter of finding out which vendor adds the right glitter to the AT&T code to do the job well. >jca> ... | Small memory model only for >jca> ... | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out >jca> ... | of here! > >Here you surpass yourself in subtlety: your irony here is that *all* >UNIXes on 386 allow you to run programs _only in the small memory model_ >(even if the UNIX kernel actually runs in the large memory model, in a >small way :->). Keep in mind that the 386 isn't the only CPU that has Unix available for it. I put that in my signature after finding out about Coherent's limitations. Even got a nasty gram from someone from Mark Williams Company. With respect to the 286, the signature is approprate. And keep in mind that your flavor of Unix has to support 386 protected mode. A 386 does not a 32-bit address sapce make. Run Xenix 286 or uPort SysV/AT and you'll see what I mean, then you'll read into the semantics of the signature. You may be narrow-minded enough to only see things in the 386, but I see it all over the place. If you think I can raise hell now, whichever Unix vendor I do decide to go with who doesn't give adequete support and bug fixes will have the opportunity to hear me do Sam Kinison over the phone. I personally don't like losing my voice over tech support issues since I do that often enough as is, so it would be nice to see what's out there now before I buy. First couple of times, I don't yell...it's after that then the person on the other end goes deaf. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/19/90)
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: >Why don't you just using Esix and install smail in place of sendmail? The >sendmail problem doesn't seem like enough of a reason to slam the door shut >on Esix. > >The things I've heard about Interactive and SCO do *NOT* lead me to believe >they are all so great themselves... It seems that ALL of the available It's Everex's attitude on fixing things. I would be more than happy to go that route if Everex would say... "Alright, you caught it, we'll look into it and send you a fix for it as soon as we find the problem." Rather than... "Yes, it's broke alright, tough (*bleep*). You want it fixed, buy the next version." Or is this a false misconception on the net regarding ESIX support? I know SCO fixes things with their updates for free. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (11/20/90)
In article <5721@crash.cts.com> John C. Archambeau writes: >It's Everex's attitude on fixing things. I would be more than happy to go >that route if Everex would say... > >"Alright, you caught it, we'll look into it and send you a fix for it as soon >as we find the problem." > >Rather than... > >"Yes, it's broke alright, tough (*bleep*). You want it fixed, buy the next >version." > >Or is this a false misconception on the net regarding ESIX support? I know >SCO fixes things with their updates for free. ESIX has always fixed bugs for me for free. I am suprised when I hear of so many problems with them. Maybe they have an evil twin brother. :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | I support gun control. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | Let's start with the government! + 416 281 6094 |
larry@nstar (Larry Snyder) (11/20/90)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >Keep in mind that the 386 isn't the only CPU that has Unix available for it. >I put that in my signature after finding out about Coherent's limitations. >Even got a nasty gram from someone from Mark Williams Company. With respect Speaking of Coherent - I have a site who is interested in a small newsfeed and they are running Coherent - has bnews (or cnews) been ported to Coherent? Does a smartmailer come with Coherent (sendmail clone?). -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA {larry@nstar, {uunet|backbone}!nstar!larry, larry%nstar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu} backbone usenet newsfeeds available Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (11/20/90)
According to jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau):
>I know SCO fixes things with their updates for free.
Once (1) they admit it's a bug, and (2) they get around to it. Both
of these criteria are often satisfied; surprisingly, however, their
"C2 Security" has no available fix; it doesn't meet criterion (1).
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
"I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed
by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh IIbill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (11/21/90)
In article <5720@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>jca> ... | Small memory model only for >>jca> ... | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out >>jca> ... | of here! >>Here you surpass yourself in subtlety: your irony here is that *all* >>UNIXes on 386 allow you to run programs _only in the small memory model_ >>(even if the UNIX kernel actually runs in the large memory model, in a >>small way :->). >Keep in mind that the 386 isn't the only CPU that has Unix available for it. >I put that in my signature after finding out about Coherent's limitations. >Even got a nasty gram from someone from Mark Williams Company. With respect >to the 286, the signature is approprate. And keep in mind that your flavor of >Unix has to support 386 protected mode. A 386 does not a 32-bit address sapce >make. Run Xenix 286 or uPort SysV/AT and you'll see what I mean, then you'll >read into the semantics of the signature. You may be narrow-minded enough to >only see things in the 386, but I see it all over the place. Well Coherenet is NOT Unix. And as far as '286 Unix goes (or Xenix), it's a dead issue as far a major vendors are concerned. I have a site with many '286 machines. Using Maynard Maynstream tape backups. Wanted to go to the 2.3.2 version of Xenix instead of the 2.2.3. Maynard said the decided to support only '386 machines. When I asked about all their old users with '286s I got sort of "Yah, we found that out" and "we finally decided to do a driver". I have been trying for over 3 months to get an answer of when. Now my phone calls don't even get returned. If you are planning on running Xenix/Unix/*ix in anything less than a '386 you are looking to have to be able to support yourself. My Xenix vendor even indicated that the Xenix '386 support is hard to get, as it's all going Unix '386 on SCO's side. >If you think I can raise hell now, whichever Unix vendor I do decide to go >with who doesn't give adequete support and bug fixes will have the opportunity >to hear me do Sam Kinison over the phone. I personally don't like losing my >voice over tech support issues since I do that often enough as is, so it would >be nice to see what's out there now before I buy. First couple of times, I >don't yell...it's after that then the person on the other end goes deaf. Well, if you want that kind of support maybe you better not think about using Unix! :-) -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (11/22/90)
>ESIX has always fixed bugs for me for free. I am suprised when I hear of >so many problems with them. Maybe they have an evil twin brother. :-) > Some examples would be instructive here. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/22/90)
larry@nstar (Larry Snyder) writes: >jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > >>Keep in mind that the 386 isn't the only CPU that has Unix available for it. >>I put that in my signature after finding out about Coherent's limitations. >>Even got a nasty gram from someone from Mark Williams Company. With respect > >Speaking of Coherent - I have a site who is interested in a small newsfeed >and they are running Coherent - has bnews (or cnews) been ported to Coherent? > >Does a smartmailer come with Coherent (sendmail clone?). Read the Nov '90 issue of Byte. UUCP is supposedly broken (or the reviewer in Byte couldn't get it to work). The Byte Labs Unix benchmarks compiled ok, but wouldn't run. Keep in mind that Coherent doesn't adhere to POSIX or SVID conventions so porting code will be somewhat of a major undertaking. There's no guarantee anything will compile and run without any major modifications. You MIGHT get smail 2.5 to compile after pruning it, but good luck. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/23/90)
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: >Well Coherenet is NOT Unix. And as far as '286 Unix goes (or Xenix), it's >a dead issue as far a major vendors are concerned. > >I have a site with many '286 machines. Using Maynard Maynstream tape >backups. Wanted to go to the 2.3.2 version of Xenix instead of the 2.2.3. >Maynard said the decided to support only '386 machines. When I asked about >all their old users with '286s I got sort of "Yah, we found that out" and >"we finally decided to do a driver". I have been trying for over 3 months >to get an answer of when. Now my phone calls don't even get returned. > >If you are planning on running Xenix/Unix/*ix in anything less than a '386 >you are looking to have to be able to support yourself. My Xenix vendor >even indicated that the Xenix '386 support is hard to get, as it's all >going Unix '386 on SCO's side. SCO is supposedly keeping Xenix support alive. But I don't trust SCO one bit. Inspite of what SCO is doing to Xenix, given the choice of either Unix or Xenix, I'd buy Xenix. >Well, if you want that kind of support maybe you better not think about >using Unix! :-) MicroPort seems to be doing alright in the 286 department, but of course, that's a moot point if you're running SCO Xenix 286. There is one thing that does tick me off about uPort though, uPort 286 doesn't have any sort of networking support. Maybe I should restate what I'm looking for. I know that no matter what Unix vendor you go with, you're going to get the business in the tech support department. I want a solid enough Unix that I don't have to go screaming to tech support every few days or so. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (11/23/90)
In article <1990Nov21.234653.26269@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: >>ESIX has always fixed bugs for me for free. I am suprised when I hear of >>so many problems with them. Maybe they have an evil twin brother. :-) >> > >Some examples would be instructive here. > The curses library had a bug in the halfdelay() and they sent me a new library after fixing it on my complaint. I had problems with the tape drive driver and they sent me a new one. The keyboard driver in Rel D has a problem under VP/ix. The fixed it. I'm still waiting for this actually. Thanks for the reminder to jog their elbow. Also they helped me get ISC VP/ix running which I thought was nice since it wasn't their product. I didn't get much from the local dealer of the VP/ix other than a double billing on my VISA. In general I have found them helpful and friendly whenever I have had to deal with them. And most important of all the support guy I deal with (Jeff Ellis) is a fellow DoDer. :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | I support gun control. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | Let's start with the government! + 416 281 6094 |