HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cotrozzi@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (Massimo Cotrozzi)
Subject: Re: Norton Commander lookalike 4 UNIX ?
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:07:19 GMT

stud2@aifbhilkka.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de (Student2 f.SC64) writes:

>I'm sick of introducing a naked hostile :-) Shell to UNIX-novices
>used to Norton Commander under DOS. Is there a lookalike product
>for UNIX (I mean, in the PD or shareware) ? No need for all of nc's 
>functionality, just the basic file/dir copying/moving/viewing stuff.
>But that ought to look exactly like nc, to make the beginnings really
>easy.

>I know about vsh, but people I gave that found it even worse than sh. 

>No flames like "shell is __MUCH__ better than Norton Commander" please,
>I really LOVE my shell, I just don't like to explain it again and again.

tell them that when they will finally learn sh they can write 
nc entirely with it.

	Massimo

( Yes, vsh is even worse than command.com )

P.S. Somebody here at my university is writing a pctools for X
may be you can ask them ...
-- 
 -- Massimo Cotrozzi  Computer Science Dept. Milan Italy
            cotrozzi@ghost.dsi.unimi.it  +39-2-27201253
 #include     <std/disclaimer.h>
From: idf@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ian Fitchet)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Is anyone using m4?
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:48:58 GMT
Distribution: comp.*.unix
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham


 Just to be awkward, m4 may well be cool, very cool or indeed the very
thing but when I used it with tvtwm (as tvtwm uses it to parse it's
startup files) it proved to be a minor pain as you couldn't have, say,
an xterm with -name HOME as it would become -name /usr4/pg/idf or
whatever.

 I didn't investigate completely (standing by for flaming captain) but
there didn't appear to be a way of indicating that the following word
was an m4 symbol as opposed to 'what I want'.  I would have preferred
the $(HOME) syntax of make, say, but then I never used it for a useful
purpose so I don't know how much of a pain that would be for _real_
users.

--
Cheers,

	Ian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Fitchet     				      I.D.Fitchet@cs.bham.ac.uk
School of Computer Science
Univ. of Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT
From: a0045@rrz.uni-koeln.de (Jochen Roderburg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Norton Commander lookalike 4 UNIX ?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:16:37 GMT
Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne, F. R. Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: berry.rrz.uni-koeln.de
In-reply-to: stud2@aifbhilkka.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:51:12 GMT

I don't know a Norton Commander lookalike for UNIX as freeware (commercial
programs exist for some PC Unixes), but there is a nice Xtree lookalike 
named utree which has most of the functionality and works on many systems.

It is at home on ftp.uni-paderborn.de in pub/unix/tools
and I have it also here on ftp.uni-koeln.de in util/shell.

Jochen Roderburg
Regional Computing Center
University of Cologne
Robert-Koch-Str. 10                    Tel.:   +49-221/470-4564
D-5000 Koeln 41                        E-Mail: Ro @ RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE
Germany
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: What CPU supported as workstation ??
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:42:49 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <BxIpIs.40z@acsu.buffalo.edu> ziniuwei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Ziniu Wei) writes:
>In my opinion, workstation is a kind of working enviroment, a trend of
>compution.  It does nothing with the CPU.  Most of us agree that a normal
>configuration of 486 is not a workstation, but what if a 486 machine with 20"
>color display, graphic accelerator, installed with Unix, NFS, and connected to
>a LAN?

These exist.  NCR (/AT&T) makes a series of workstations containing
the i486(TM) CPU.

				--Blair
				  "Mine should arrive any month, now..."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit
From: danield@unlv.edu (Daniel Z. Davidson)
Subject: Re: FREE or CHEAP PC/AT UNIX _wanted_ !!!
Keywords: UNIX FREE CHEAP
Organization: The Collective Insanity
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:48:19 GMT

In article <1d79a5INNacb@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> remke@cs.tu-berlin.de (Jan K. Remke) writes:
>I have a very _FAST_ AMD286 (25Mhz!) based PC/AT, and I want UNIX on it.
>Can anyone here supply me with a version running on my Computer ???
>If it is a commercial version, think of the fact that I am a poor student,
>who can't afford _any_ price for it. Please reply personally per Mail,
>rather than writing a followup to this article. Please help me.
>Also, I want to run X-Windows on my AT, my graphic card is well cached...

X-Windows on a 286 system?  I don't think so.  There are Several Comercal
version of Unix (MicroPort and Xenix) that will run on your 286, But there
are currently no version of X Windows that will run under a '286 version of
unix.
 
Daniel


-- 

(danield@cs.unlv.edu)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:49:36 GMT

In <id.81RU.CTA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.223834.9454@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Yeah, but on this one I agree with him.  The only way to keep
>> companies from doing silly marketing cruft like this is if people let
>> them eat all those chips.

>Well, if you're independently wealthy and can afford to let politics guide
>your decisions, more power to you. But at least let your politics be informed:

Oh, they are.

>> There was NO reason to come out with the
>> 486SX other than to attempt predatory pricing on folks like AMD and
>> Cyrix while keeping the price of the 486DX inflated.

>If the 486 is so inflated, why haven't Cyrix or TI or someone come out
>with an integrated FPU/CPU chip yet?

Because initial cleanroom design, startup, masking, etc., are quite
expensive?  Because it has to have perfect compatibility with what
Intel built in order to be meaningful in the market?  Do you seriously
think this ISN'T going to happen?

Intel, on the other hand, started at the chip with the FPU and went
backward. 

>> There is no way
>> I'm going to believe that the price difference between the 486SX and
>> the 486DX can be explained by the cost of testing the math unit in the
>> latter.

>The 486SX is a different die, cheaper process, cheaper packaging, and so
>on. It's a cheaper chip all around.

Is now; wasn't when they initially released it.  

>Keep your ire for the 487SX. There's plenty of real marketing bullshit to
>get angry about to waste your time on the initial SX shipment (before they
>got the cheaper FAB set up: no point in doing that if the chip wasn't going
>to sell).

All part of the same scam.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: plona@bostech.com (Larry Plona)
Subject: Re: Voice-Mail systems for SVR4 Unix
Organization: Boston Technology, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 16:43:16 GMT

(Karl Bunch)
>>Are there any (affordable) Voice-mail systems that will work on
>>a 386/486 box running SVR4?  I would like to off my Answering service
>>(Hey and even my personal Answering machine) if I could.  Something
>>with one or two line capability etc. would be nice.

(Lee Preimesberger)
>Let me second that.  I know that there are relatively cheap cards for
>under DOS - but has anyone made them work under their favorite U*ix?

 Well, it's not for home use, but my company, Boston Technology builds
 large voicemail systems for local phone companies. These systems are
 built entirely of 386s running SCO UNIX. I can't remember which
 voice cards they use.

 -Larry Plona
-- 
SIT  DENIQUE INSCRIPTUM  IN   "Let  it   finally   be  written
FRONTE  UNIUS CUIUSQUE QUID    on  the  forehead  of each  man
DE  REBUS PUBLICIS  SENTIAT    what  he thinks of open systems"
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: seymour@ast.saic.com (Ken Seymour)
Subject: Re: POP Server
Organization: SAIC
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.230556.5407@cs.mun.ca> john7@garfield.cs.mun.ca (John Mackey) writes:
>Does anyone know where I can find a POP server for ISC 2.2.1 / 3.0?
>I am aware of the one available from ftp.cc.berkeley.edu, but
>the README file indicates it is fairly BSD specific, and I would
>rather not have to go to the effort of porting it!

I seem to recall running into this same thing before with Consensys
(SVR4).  I took a BSD pop source and commented out all the file locking
commands.  This made it work under System V but is dangerous if the same
user reads his mail on two machines at once.  I always told myself I
would figure out the corresponding System V lock commands but never got
around to it.  If there is enough demand I could post the hacked up
source (or diffs if I have the time).
-- 
Ken Seymour
seymour@ast.saic.com
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:423 comp.os.linux:15763 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:28978
From: chuckc@fc.hp.com (Chuck Cairns)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:23:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: fc.Bx946w.Cxq
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.6 PL6]

I sure am glad that this bunch is NOT in charge at Intel. It seems that 
many techie types never forgave Intel for the original 486sx chip which
had the disabled FP unit. I think it was a stroke of genius. Almost all
pre 486 systems had NO FP. So clearly most people didn't need the FP.
So whoy not offer them what they need at lower price. The COST of the chip
is not in the one-by-one production its in the plant to make these things
in the first place and the R&D cost of design. Intel is faced with a semi
commodity market and yes it's in Intel's interest to keep ahead of the
competition. 

Now the 486SX is it's own die and is smaller and available in a plastic
pack. As I remember the  SX parts are down in the ~$100 range in quantity.

If Intel had invented the SX first with an offboard FP usnit and then
announced the new and improved DX with "on-board FP" then everyone would  
have a much different attitude.

BTW I see LOTS of 486 SX units in the stores now. Even HP has one that
lists at like $1200 w/o disk or monitor. So Intel has put 486 "iron"
down into the price range of many many more consumers.

Shareholders are not interested in how "hokey" some particular approach 
is they want profits! Consumers are not interested in how Intel originally
designed something, they're only interested in bang/$. I'd say Intel is right on
track.

cc
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 486 SX vs. DX
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:41:01 GMT

In <Bx95Ir.9xy@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> johnb@sage.cc.purdue.edu (John Brainerd) writes:

>     While on this SX-DX battle, I have a couple questions.
>What would happen if you bought a motherboard with coprocessor
>socket(Weitek?) and then bought a 487 coprocessor, and left the 
>main CPU socket empty?  My dealer said this would work, only
>this was about a year ago and I wonder if they changed that.
>The theory was the 487 disables the 486SX completely, so it 
>ends up just being a lot of $$$ sitting on the board keeping
>its socket company.

I think this trick is going to depend on the motherboard.  If things
were built exactly the way Intel said to, I think this trick fails.
The 'coprocessor' recognizes that there is no main processor and
refuses to run (perhaps it can be fooled with some pullup resisters or
something).  Please note that the preceding is based on vaguely
remembered hearsay and may not be correct.

>Another question, I currently have a 486DX-25.  Is the DX2 
>upgrade worth it?  I not running any kind of u**x but have
>thought about buying a new HDD and getting Linux up.

Is your current machine 'fast enough'?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.223834.9454@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Yeah, but on this one I agree with him.  The only way to keep
> companies from doing silly marketing cruft like this is if people let
> them eat all those chips.

Well, if you're independently wealthy and can afford to let politics guide
your decisions, more power to you. But at least let your politics be informed:

> There was NO reason to come out with the
> 486SX other than to attempt predatory pricing on folks like AMD and
> Cyrix while keeping the price of the 486DX inflated.

If the 486 is so inflated, why haven't Cyrix or TI or someone come out
with an integrated FPU/CPU chip yet?

> There is no way
> I'm going to believe that the price difference between the 486SX and
> the 486DX can be explained by the cost of testing the math unit in the
> latter.

The 486SX is a different die, cheaper process, cheaper packaging, and so
on. It's a cheaper chip all around.

Keep your ire for the 487SX. There's plenty of real marketing bullshit to
get angry about to waste your time on the initial SX shipment (before they
got the cheaper FAB set up: no point in doing that if the chip wasn't going
to sell).
-- 
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
{dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
From: rhaig@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert haig)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: which should I use?
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:43:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

I'm wanting to install unix on my PC (386/33 8MB 200MB HD) but don't know 
what to use.  I have bsd386 0.1 ready to install, but am curious about
what else is out there & opinnions of others in net-land.


Robert Haig			|	"Stand back ma'am, I'm a professional!
Technician/Network Admin	|	 What does this switch do again?"
UT Residence Halls 		|	    -- unknown (unemployed) consultant
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Voice-Mail systems for SVR4 Unix
From: karl@ttank.ttank.com (Karl Bunch)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:31:03 GMT
Organization: Think Tank Software, Norwalk, CA

Are there any (affordable) Voice-mail systems that will work on
a 386/486 box running SVR4?  I would like to off my Answering service
(Hey and even my personal Answering machine) if I could.  Something
with one or two line capability etc. would be nice.

Thanks,
Karl
-- 
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Karl Bunch                        ||| UUCP: ..!uunet!cerritos.edu!ttank!karl
% Think Tank Software               ||| INTERNET: karl@ttank.com
% 42.5% of all quoted statistics are made up, of those 23.185% are right. :-)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:06:49 GMT

In <Bx8DBp.CMu@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.223834.9454@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>The only way to keep
>>companies from doing silly marketing cruft like this is if people let
>>them eat all those chips.

>I'm not complaining; it sounds like I'm getting all of the DX power I
>need from a machine that costs several hundred dollars less.  That's
>extra money that can go toward memory -- and you remember the problem
>with memory these days, don'tcha? :-)

Well, you get all that machine until you find you need a math
coprocessor and have no good way to add one cheaply.  You'd have been
better off (as would we all) if they had simply dropped the price of
the DX parts.

There's a problem with memory?  Don't look at me.  I build stuff to
kill people and have nothing to do with semiconductors (other than
stuffing them into weapons and writing software for them).

>>There is no way
>>I'm going to believe that the price difference between the 486SX and
>>the 486DX can be explained by the cost of testing the math unit in the
>>latter.

>Maybe also the cost of junking flaky math units?  Maybe it's the money
>they're losing on marketing SX chips that no one is buying?  What do
>you think the price difference is the result of -- general silicon
>shoddiness?

Arbitrary marketing decision, with no justification in cost.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: ketil@sandel.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: What to upgrade? (was: Re: 486 SX vs. DX)
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<HCOBB.92Nov5191617@fly2.berkeley.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:43:09

>>>>> On 5 Nov 92 19:16:17, hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb) said:
	
	>    Is your current machine 'fast enough'?

	Henry> 	Wrong.

	Henry> 	What is the deficieny of your current system?  Does it
	Henry> have 8 MB of 32-bit memory on the Motherboard (Can it
	Henry> be upgraded to this level with DIPs or SIMMs?).

If you want to run linux, I'd say 8Mb is good, especially it you want
to run X windows.  More if you can afford it :-)

	Henry> 	Does it have at least SVGA video (800x600x16 at the very least).  A
	Henry> 14" monitor at .28 dot pitch or better?

For X I'd recommend a larger monitor and 1024x768 resolution (or more)
I wouldn't worry too much about depth (number of colors)  Anyway,
monitors seem to be sinking in price, probably because the windowing
community (except for the mac lusers :-) are discovering that 14"
doesn't quite cut it anymore...

	Henry> 	Does it have a 200 MB harddisk and a mismatched pair
	Henry> of floppies?  Have you ever backed up the harddisk?

A backup capability is nice, nescessary if you want to use your
computer for 'serious' work.  200Mb, well, I'd say you'd get by pretty
well with half that, but again, it depends on what software you want
to install, and what you can afford.

	Henry> 	Then you are ready to worry about BIOS and heating concerns with
	Henry> the DX2 and think about UNIX. (*)

I agree that memory and disk probably are more important than raw
processor speed, why don't you get linux up and running, and then
decide what to do in the way of upgrades? :-)

	Henry> * - Unix is a trademark of some silly Modem Test Command.

:-)


--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: tln@uni-paderborn.de (T. Lam Nguyen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: 386BSD with two IDE drives
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:25:35 GMT
Organization: Uni Paderborn FB 17 Informatik GERMANY
NNTP-Posting-Host: ktp_serv.uni-paderborn.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Robert Banz (banz@umbc8.umbc.edu) wrote:
: I obtained a copy of the 386BSD boot floppy, and during bootup, it didn't 
: recognize that I had TWO Conner 210M IDE drives, it only said I had one.  This
: wouldn't be a big problem if I had a place to install it on my first drive, but
: the only place where I have room is on the second.  
: 
: Question:  Is this a known problem with 386bsd, or is just something screwy
: with my hardware ?
: 
: Thanks in advance, 
: Rob Banz
: (banz@umbc8.umbc.edu)
: 

 Hi there,

 There are several patches in "comp.unix.bsd", also a FAQ about installing 386BSD on a second drive. Just reading that news group.

 Hope this help,
 TL
--
    ____ |    __o       __o   | tatlam@uni-paderborn.de
 /\  /   |  _`\<,_    _`\<,_  | ...!uunet!mcsun!unido!pbinfo!tatlam 
/  \/__  | (_)/ (_)  (_)/ (_) | tln@ktp_serv.uni-paderborn.de
- Research is what I'm doing if I don't know what I'm doing -- A.Einstein
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:422 comp.os.linux:15759 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:28973
From: iisakkil@snakemail.hut.fi (Mika Iisakkila)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:51:49 GMT
	<1d5cs6INN838@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> <1992Nov3.172229.2015@news.nd.edu>
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math) writes:

>Intel, in their infinite wisdom, made the 487SX and 486DX physically
>incompatible, so you can't just plug the cheaper part into the faster board.

...unless you get a motherboard which allows 486SX, 486DX or 487SX all
in the same socket (not simultaneously, silly). In my motherboard it
takes 3 jumpers to configure the CPU type. Big deal. It is
manufactured by MG (no, I'd never heard of them either, but it says
"the most famous in the world" on the box...). Can accomodate anything
up to 486DX-50.

--
Segmented Memory Helps Structure Software
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: sam@wa4phy.ampr.org (Sam Drinkard)
Subject: Re: Cacheable address range on ISA 486's
Organization: Unix Business Solutions
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:13:06 GMT

kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey) writes:

[stuff deleted for brievity]

>sockets plus two special 16M sockets (the so-called 32-bit sockets?)).
>The cache configuration options allow you to install a 64K cache which
>only covers 16M address space or a 256K cache which covers up to 64M
>address space (it instructs you to put different chips in the TAG
>sockets for each configuration.)  The ADVANCED CHIPSET SETUP now
>allows me to explicitly set any cacheable address range from 4M to 64M
>in 4M increments.

>Whew!  Maybe an overly long-winded answer to a seemingly simple
>question?

>/Joe
Joe, I have a "Magitronics" 486-33 isa bus board that does the same thing
you describe, and has probably the same simm configuration.  I've been
rather loosely following this thread, and have gotten curious if in fact,
the tag ram on this board will support the 64 meg like it allows you to
select in the setup.  Currently only have 8 megs on board, but planning
on increasing to at least 32 megs one of these days soon.. kinda waiting
to see if someone else has success before ploping down the $ for the
simm's tho..

sam

-- 
     Sam Drinkard	|	internet: wa4phy!sam@galois.nscf.org
     WA4PHY		|	internet: sam@wa4phy.nscf.nscf.org