HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiesel@ipf.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Joachim Wiesel)
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Reply-To: wiesel@ipf.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de
Organization: IPF, University of Karlsruhe
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:53:06 GMT

I would like to see  8514/A support for X11 (ATI  Ultra plus WD chipset cards)
and support for the new ATI 1280x1024  MACH32 cards (also 8514/a upwards compatible).

Joachim
  

---

Joachim Wiesel, Institut fuer Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung,
Universitaet  Karlsruhe, Englerstr. 7, D-7500 Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 2316                      Fax: +49 721 694 568
Internet: wiesel@ipf.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de
From: peter@admin.mport.COM (Peter Tostado)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:32:04 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:


>>>>>> "Karl" == Karl Denninger (kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com)
>>>>>> "Chip" == Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com)

>Karl> ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.

>Chip> So what's your point?

>Karl> That this group is comp.unix.sys5.r4
>Karl> 				  ^^^
>Karl> ODT doesn't belong here.


>Relax. You, Karl, is the one hurting the S/N ratio, not the guy with
>the ODT remark.

>/Lars

Well said Lars.  
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:11:58 GMT
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL

In article <id.FART.TXJ@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>In article <lcjqsbINN624@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> ledesma@mexico.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>> 	Demonstrates Multiprocessing On X86 For First Time
>
>Sequent must be pretty surprised.

No kidding; I could have sworn that I saw that very thing running a few
years ago at Uniforum....  :-)

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Subject: Re: SysV
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:53:58 GMT

In article <Bv6txK.GGz@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
> jack@admin.mport.COM (Jack Craig) writes:
> 
> >microport is also an 'excellent port' but i dont feel i can promote it
> >is this forum without(rightful) flaming.
> 
> Microport, ah -- I remember them -- they've have money problems
> for quite some time, eh?  Chapter 11 was it?  Actually, they product
> last time I checked with all the options was about twice as much
> as Dell.
> 
> >svr4 offerings from del esix, uhc, consensus, and microport all
> >bear consideration for issues of price, performance, and support.
> 
> But to date, Dell offers the most stable, solid and bug free
> product on the market.  
> 
> -- 
> Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
> keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry


Larry, will you shut up already?  How many of the current SVR4.0.4 products
have you actually tested, and compared to one another?  How do you know
that Dell's current offering is any more stable than 4.0.4 from Microport
or Esix?  And, from the comments recently, it seems that the 2.2 release
from Dell is LESS stable than the 2.1 release.  I haven't seen that kind
of bug report about Microport or Esix' 4.0.4.

Until you have sat down and done an actuall side-by-side comparison of
the products, you are in no position to make such statements.  If you
base such statements on how many complaints there are on netnews, Dell's
2.2 is beginning to look like Consensys.

I'm glad your system works fine.  Bully for you.  But not everyone has
the same purchase criteria, or the same hardware as you do.  Posting
hundreds of lines of marketing info that no one asked for is uncouth.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat             | dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com  | Somebody get me a
AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex  |   cheeseburger!
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       |      
Middletown, NJ  07748       | (908) 957-5871        | --Steve Miller Band
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:16:10 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep24.205847.23496@uts.cc.wayne.edu> tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
|drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
|
|>I've had BSD vs. SysV flame wars with friends, and I finally boiled my
|>objections down to:
|
|>	Sys V doesn't have:
|>		- symbolic links
|>		- long file names
|
|UTS has both symbolic lines and can (not the default) long file names.

It may be even better than that (depending on exactly what you get with your
particular system).  SVr4 suuports multiple file system *types*.  One of the
frequently supported FS types is the Berkeley FS.  Thus you can get *all*
of the Berkeley file system features, even down to *mounting* a *pre*-existing
Berkeley disk.  (The `may' above comes in because it is, I suppose, possible
that some SVr4 vendors may not supply the Berkeley File System 'out of the
box'). (But I would bet almost anything that Sun's SVr4 has it).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: sendmail for SVR4
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:53:59 GMT

In <ellis.717556867@nova> ellis@nova.gmi.edu (Stew Ellis) writes:
>Exactly how does one become an ex mailsurr user and still be a SYSVR4 user?

Simple.  Required is liberal use of the following commands: rm, ftp, make.
Get the sendmail sources (I reccomend sendmail+IDA), remove the old mail
software, build the new and install.  I'm a heck of a lot happier now.

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       jim@tcp.com
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	| This space intentionally left blank
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:29:25 GMT

In article <1a2db1INNq0d@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>In article <bonnie.717532299@earth.njit.edu> bonnie@rat2.njit.edu (Bonnie MacKellar) writes:
>> I have heard, both from a DELL technical person and
>> a SunSoft salesperson, that DELL is likely to distribute
>> Solaris in the future.
>
>Let's hope they provide reasonable upgrades for existing 
>Dell Unix owners.

Considering their past performance in the upgrade department, I would hazard
a guess that your BEST upgrade path in terms of cost is going to be through
them.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
From: kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen)
Subject: Re: sendmail for SVR4
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 18:36:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

 Not only this but the forwarding only works from an entry in your
/var/mail/user and the mail file has to be empty before starting forwarding
and ending it .forward isnt supported and the alias syntax is
incompatible with sendmail... mailsurr is a REAL abortion......
a very unhappy (former mailsurr user)...
sysadmin
     cheers
     kelly
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:47 comp.unix.sysv386:15021
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: SVr4 and VESA
Followup-To: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sysv386
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:43:31 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Hardware compatibility question.

-*----
If one is buying a "workstation equivalent" '486 PC today, then
for performance and future enhancement, hardware features such as
a VESA VL-bus and a video accelerator (S-cubed, Diamond 1024,
etc.) are desirable.  How well does this new hardware work with:

  o  Unix SVr4.0?
  o  Unix SVr4.2?
  o  X windows (x11r4 or x11r5)?

Russell
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:31:21 GMT

jde@esix.everex.com (Jeff Ellis) writes:

>I am testing SVR4.2 right now and it has all of the features of 4.0.4.
>It has a new version of C and a graphic Debugger to run from the desktop.
>It supports CD filesystems, Token Ring, X11R5,.....

Tell us about this new version of C.  The graphic debuggers sounds very
interesting as well as the CD FS.  Will ESIX distribute it on CD?

>BTW What features are important for you people to buy 4.2? 

performance, reliability, enhancements, support

>(in short what should Esix do to get you to buy?)
>We are talking about adding a Colorado memory tape driver and maybe shipping
>it on DC20?? type tapes as a option. 

Are the Colorado tape units that popular with UNIX sites?

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:44:39 GMT

jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:
>
>  (*EXCELLENT* account of DOSgunga difficulties deleted!)
>

Precisely!  I don't know *where* the "difficulty of administering UNIX"
myth came from, but you are dead on.  My little $0.02 chuckle:
You know the commercial, the one with Bo?  Here goes... :)


   So UNIX is a little bit complex...
   SO WHAT?!
   Look what it's doin with that complexity:
   It's fixin dinner.
   It's scrubbin toilets.
   It's spankin the monkey.
   IN FACT, it's fixin dinner WHILE scrubbin toilets,
   AND it's spankin the monkey in its spare cycles!
   And what are you and your simpler OS doing?
   YOU'RE TRYIN TO FIGGER OUT WHY YOUR PACKET DRIVER'S TOAST!
   <knock!> <knock!>
   I think you hear me knockin,
   and I think I'm comin in,
   and I'm bringing UNIX and its big, bad complexity with me.
   Okay?!?!


grinz,



jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
        NT...  Just say N0T.   Skate UN*X!   Standard disclaimer. 
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: martin@unislc.uucp (Martin Cryer)
Subject: Re: SysV
Reply-To: martin@unislc.UUCP (Martin Cryer,D1Z01,5754)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:47:45 GMT

In article <BvB4os.6nn@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.193742.4707@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>>In article <BvAIvF.22n@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.
>>
>When you consider that there is no requirement to "set aside" RAM on a V.4
>machine for buffers (its dynamically used as available), the balance becomes
>even more neutral.  My system is faster with V.4 than V.3.2 with identical
>RAM under heavy load precisely due to the fact that the system can use all
>available memory for disk buffer cache when it has free RAM, and can also
>reallocate that same memory to processes (thereby avoiding heavy paging)
>when required.
>
>This a V.3.2 kernel >cannot< do.  The RAM you set aside for buffer cache is
>>gone< from the system for all intents and purposes.  Thus, as an
>administrator you get to make that delicate trade between higher speed reads
>and writes to the disk, and lower paging rates.  If your load is static this
>can be wonderful -- but the real world seldom presents static loads to
>systems.  Of course one solution is to just throw hardware at the problem.....
>
>--
>Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
>VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022

This stuff about SVR4 and disk buffers being provided from the page pool
is true. However, for PCAT class machines this does not always
give better performance. If you have a system with an ISA not EISA
Bus Master DMA disk controller, it can only DMA to and from
the lowest 16MB of system memory (physical address). This means you can
build an SVR4 system with 64MB of RAM and still have to perform a copy
of the memory from above 16MB to below in order for the disk controller
to access it. Often slower than the SVR3 schemes in common use, of making sure
all static disk buffers are below 16MB.

Now this argument is reversed in favour of SVR4 if you have less than 16MB
of memory or an EISA Bus Master DMA controller (which can address all
physical memory due to its 32bit addressing). If you have a programmed I/O
controller or; a slave DMA controller and a system board that
supports extended DMA registers and a O/S port that uses them, then SVR4
may again rule supreme.

I guess the thing is that there are no hard and fast rule as to which
scheme is best.

Beware of buzzwords. Their basis is often in half truth and may not
apply to you.

Martin Cryer
SVR4.0/MP Development
UNISYS Salt Lake City

All opinions are my own and not those of my employer.
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Date: 28 Sep 1992 12:04:33 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: More specifically ...

-*----
I wrote: 
>> Dell has gutted its Unix group.  Given economic conditions, they
>> seem to have decided that what they have is enough.  ...

In article <1992Sep27.181448.28583@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
> What does this mean? ...

They used to have a dozen engineers fixing, testing, and 
upgrading the USL software.  This was why their SVr4 was
so better than the rest.  This group has been cut back.

> ... That they are no-longer selling unix? ...

There was no such implication.  What I said was that this
raises questions for *future* versions.

> ... What is your source of info on this?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

In article <Bv956p.196@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> I have a suspicion that there will be an official response to this soon.  
> I forwarded the original to Dell's support team, and got a rather "heh,
> where'd that come from" in reply.  I pointed them here.

I look forward to their response.

Russell
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: shane@sbgrad7.cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough)
Subject: Consensys consensus?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, State U of NY at Stony Brook
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:39:25 GMT

I have just decided to get a SVR4.x for Intel, so if any of the following
questions are in an FAQ or just plain common knowledge to the folks in this
group, I'm sorry.

1) Does anybody really have a 4.2 release for Intel? Consensys claims they're
   the first (mid October release). Univel's release is slated for the end
   of November, and a woman at USL said DELL would be shortly thereafter.
   She also mumbled something about Everex, but I couldn't pin her down.

2) The Salesdroid at Consensys says they only support SCSI disks, and they
   don't support the ATI Graphics Ultra (?!?!?) He also said a driver was
   available for the ATI from another company ($$$) but he couldn't remember
   the name (begins with 'H'?). I'd rather not have to lose a healthy
   hardware investment (ATI & IDE).

3) A full featured Consensys release is about $1500 :-(. Is this the typical
   price for the full feature set? Included is the dev system, net, admin,
   X11R5 with MoOLIT, multi-user, etc. They also charge over $100 extra if
   you elect to get the release on floppies.

4) I couldn't care less about NetWare... is Univel a viable option even so?
   Can you buy it without NetWareBloat?

5) Several UNIX applications of interest to me (CorelDRAW and FrameMaker) don't
   seem to be available for non-SCO-Intel platforms. Is this true?

If anyone out there is running Consensys and wouldn't mind sharing his/her
experiences with me, please email.

-Shane

--
Shane Bouslough       | #include <stddisc.h>
shane@sbcs.sunysb.edu | #include <happy.rhodes>
From: dsiegel@optima.UUCP (Dave Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Date: 28 Sep 92 04:45:44 GMT

From article <bonnie.717532299@earth.njit.edu>, by bonnie@rat2.njit.edu (Bonnie MacKellar):
> I have heard, both from a DELL technical person and
> a SunSoft salesperson, that DELL is likely to
> distribute Solaris in the future.

That would be a bad move, in my opinion.  If Dell goes to Solaris 2.0, I'm
not upgrading.  Now, Solaris 2.1, or 2.0.x, possibly.   There's too much bad
news about Solaris for me to trust it.

Also, is SVR4.2 not the "Unix Light"?  Why in the world would I want a stripped
down unix, incapable of most of the things I originally purchased it for?

-dave

--
Dave Siegel              dsiegel@cs.arizona.edu    dsiegel@biosci.arizona.edu
SysMgr, Biotec, U of Az  dsiegel@hacks.arizona.edu dsiegel@seagull.tucson.az.us
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: billc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Bill Carpenter)
Subject: Re: CSCOPE : Is it going to be part of the release?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:12:47 GMT

kamil> Does anyone have CSCOPE (the source browser tool) running on
kamil> their SUN box? Is it possible to get the sources for this
kamil> beast? I really like working with cscope and can't seem to get
kamil> it form any familiar arch sites. I think its a public domain
kamil> thing..  PS: Is this going to become part of the SVR4? Is it
kamil> already?

[1]  cscope is part of the SVR4 development tools
[2]  cscope is not public domain
[3]  you can get sources for cscope, but there is a nominal charge;
     call the USL Toolchest bulletin board (908-522-6900, login
     "guest") for more info

I have nothing to do with cscope except being a happy user.  My
company, however, is involved.  BTW, if you're interested, there is a
GNUemacs elisp interface to cscope (cscope.el) available from the
usual elisp archive places.
-- 
  Bill                      William_J_Carpenter@ATT.COM        or
  (908) 576-2932            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
  AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 3C-207
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: SysV
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:30:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.031356.26227@access.digex.com> breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
>In article <DRW.92Sep24142843@riesz.mit.edu> drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>>I've had BSD vs. SysV flame wars with friends, and I finally boiled my
>>objections down to:
>>
>>	Sys V doesn't have:
>>		- symbolic links
>>		- long file names
>>		- job control
>>	Unfortunately, I use these features all the time.
>>
>>I'm told that R4 solves these problems.  Is that true?

>Well SCO Unix ODT 2.0 has all that and shared libraries too.

ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
From: paul@devon.lns.pa.us (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:31:16 GMT
Organization: Personal System, Lancaster, PA, USA

jde@esix.everex.com (Jeff Ellis) writes:

>Richard Griffiths (richardg@ssd.intel.com) wrote:
>:>|> Let me know what you net users what, while we can still add it!
>:>
>:>How about DOS filesystem support and DOS emulation capabilities. 

>Noted.......

Isn't DOS emulation builtin to SVR4.2?

- paul
-- 
INTERNET:  paul@devon.lns.pa.us      |    Why doesn't anything ever
UUCP:      ...!rutgers!devon!paul    |    vanish into THICK air?  --Me
From: jack@admin.mport.COM (Jack Craig)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:28:00 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

its hard to believe whats posted here sometimes. 

i suppose larry that you repaint your car everytime you replace an
engine because the engine gave the car a 'bad name'?! 

and karl, you're not much better. first off, there are only one or two
of the original microport employees still at microport(and they arent
the ones that 'earned your hatred'). secondly, for you to dismiss out
of hand what a newly formed company does because of what it did under
an earlier set of folks/technology is myopic to say the least.

now go ahead and flame me, but then can we get back to contructive
issues such as what doesnt work and how can we make it better?

thanks, jack...

and ps: my comments are my own and dont reflect microport's at all.
=============================================================================
 Jack Craig  Microport         SVR4 408-438-UNIX   uunet!mport.com!jack
             Software Horizons SVR3 408-684-1375   uunet!sco.com!blznrzn!jack
=============================================================================
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:43:32 GMT
	<1992Oct1.171402.7727@mccc.edu> <BvGqw9.9xv@portal.hq.videocart.com>
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com's message of Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:09:44 GMT


	I'm going to hack the Inet disk to overlay the installation on top
of the old partitions.

	Anybody have a list of the minimal set needed to get the system to
boot up to networkibility?
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
From: dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: jobs to run at powerdown
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:13:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvM4sD.1wu@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
> How do I add new jobs to be executed at powerdown?
> 
> I have a script called K39bbs in /etc/rc2.d that I would like
> to run when bringing the machine down -- and it isn't running.
> 
> -- 
> Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
> keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry


You're a little bit confused about K & S files, I believe.  In each rc?.d
directory, K files are for things that are to be killed when ENTERING that
run level, and S files are for things that are to be started when ENTERING
that run level.  There are no files run when LEAVING a run level (think
about how /etc/inittab is processed).

What you want is to put yoru K file in /etc/rc0.d, which is the run level 
being entered for shutdown.  In general, I put the the file itself in
/etc/init.d, then link it to /etc/rc2.d/SnnXXX and /etc/rc0.d/KnnXXX

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat             | dwex@mtgzfs3.att.com  | Somebody get me a
AT&T Bell Laboratories      | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex  |   cheeseburger!
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421     |                       |      
Middletown, NJ  07748       | (908) 957-5871        | --Steve Miller Band