HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paraffa@sunvis2.vislab.olemiss.edu (Carl Raffa)
Subject: MSDOS emulator needed
Organization: Mississippi Center for Supercomputing Research
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:55:50 GMT

A few months ago someone asked about a MSDOS emulator, and
someone else gave a site that had partial sources for one that he
worked on a long time ago and gave up on.  Does anyone remember
this, and if so, would you mind e-mailing me the relevent
information?  Or, does anyone know of any sources for MSDOS
emulators?

Thanks in advance.

Please e-mail replies to
paraffa@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu

---------------
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:36:23 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <16144@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> >When will SunPC, OnLine DiskSuite, SunLink, etc. be available for
> Yes, it's probably not a Good Thing that Sun hasn't yet ported them. 

OnLine DiskSuite no being ported can't be hurting Auspex any.  Not from
where I'm sitting, anyway.  

Gee, boss, I can't get all that Disk Shadowing we've been using on our
fileserver when I take Solaris.  Come to that, I can't support my VME
PrestoServe or my Interphase NC{4,6}00 / Sun Network CoProcessors.  So
our NFS performance will slow down, be less secure and require a larger
share of an expensive resource.  Dates?  None as yet.

If that doesn't scream ``buy an Auspex'' I don't know what does.

ian
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: bwp@engin.umich.edu (Bruce Wayne Patton)
Subject: Re: New compilers for SunOS 4.1.x
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:51:21 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: mliu@pt.com (Fred Liu)
Subject: Re: Sun's {F}SBE/S board blues
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:01:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.152826@neiman.east.sun.COM> evan@fsg.com writes:
>I have a couple of questions relevant to the current shortage of SBE/S and
>FSBE/S (and I'd bet DFSBE/S) boards from Sun...
>
>3) Are there any CURRENTLY SHIPPING 3rd party boards that will perform
>these functions?
>
Performance Technologies makes PT-SBS550 fast SCSI, ethernet card.
For more information, contact us at (716)256-0200 (voice),
(716)256-0791 (fax).  PT-SBS500 supports 10 Base-T ethernet connector.

-- 
Fred Liu, Performance Technologies Incorporated		mliu@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620		uupsi!ptsys1!mliu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: revtek@world.std.com (Jacques A Vanschouwen)
Subject: PowerDrive now available for Sun workstations
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:18:19 GMT


Revolution Technologies First To Unveil Transparent Low Cost
Disk Compression Software For SPARCr Workstation Users.

NATICK, Mass. -- January 4, 1993 -- Revolution Technologies (tm) today
introduced PowerDriveTM, a software product designed to transparently
increase the file storage capacity of SPARC workstations and servers.
With PowerDrive, users can store more files and applications at much
lower cost than purchasing additional disk drives.

+ DOUBLES DISK DRIVE STORAGE CAPACITY 

The PowerDrive product is intended for users who want to store additional
applications and files on their workstations than would typically fit.
With PowerDrive, files are compressed to 50% of their original size on
average. This significant reduction virtually doubles the drive's storage
capacity.

+ EASY INSTALLATION IN MINUTES

The PowerDrive software installs in minutes and allows the user to
immediately take advantage of the additional disk space. During
PowerDrive installation, existing files on the system are compressed
into the PowerDrive format -- making more room to store new files.
When a file bearing the PowerDrive format is accessed, it is
transparently decompressed for use by the user.  The PowerDrive
software is fully configurable and works easily with all file types
including text files, object files, and executables.

+ IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY

PowerDrive is available now for the Solaris 1.0 (SunOS 4.1.x) operating
system.  A version for Solaris 2.x will be available in March, 1993.
Revolution Technologies is offering a special introductory price of $99
until March 31, 1993. PowerDrive is available via anonymous FTP at
world.std.COM (192.74.137.5) in the directory pub/revtek.  Download
files powerdrive.tar and powerdrive.README.

PowerDrive can also be ordered by calling Revolution Technologies at
(508) 650-1490 or by sending a FAX request to (508) 655-8860.

Users can try out PowerDrive at no cost for 30 days by obtaining a demo
license from Revolution Technologies.

Revolution Technologies and PowerDrive are trademarks of Revolution
Technologies.  SPARC is a registered trademark of SPARC International, Inc.



Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: chris@cs.uchicago.edu (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Organization: AM Investors, Chicago
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:17:32 GMT

> [Imagine fifty lines of quoted text.] ;)

Is Sun losing touch with its customers?  Is sun losing touch with its
self?

When will SunPC, OnLine DiskSuite, SunLink, etc. be available for
sunos5?  Doesn't this vendor know that the move to SV has been
trumpeted and heralded for many years now?  Haven't they been using
the powerful porting tools and compatability packages?  The current
install scripts won't work if you put /usr/5bin at the front of your
path.  Why don't the applications work under both?  Don't they know
about hiding the implementation behind a portable interoperable
interface?  How long will I have to run sunos4 and sunos5
simultaneously?  When will I get tools that let me administer a
heterogenous network?  Are the emperors new clothes really the mantle
of progress?  Does anyone have any answers?

cj
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Date: 27 Dec 1992 20:46:45 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com
Keywords: interesting old thought

In article <1992Dec27.033255.11067@eskimo.com> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
>     We don't have to take it, and that's an important point.  Make it clear
>to Sun that you won't take it and they'll either be forced to follow the
>market or go out of business.

Isn't that what they're doing?  "The market" is System V.

What if Sun calls your bluff?  At least Solaris 2.x provides Solaris 1.x
compatibility features.  If you switch to another vendor, the conversion
will be much harder.

Sun may also have figured on losing a few old customers as part of this
process.  If incorporating System V results in lots more new customers,
they'll still come out ahead in the long run.

>     Write into your purchase orders for new Sun equipment that the purchase
>is conditioned on the equipment being able to run Sun/OS 4.1.x.

I'm sure Sun won't turn down orders for Sparcstation 2's, 6xx/MP's and
single-processor Sparcstation 10's.  Eventually, though, they'll be taken
off the price list.  But there will probably be a decent supply of used
machines then.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb question about at/batch
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:55:01 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara


 >This is a very unimportant question I've always's wondered about.
 >When using the at or batch commands, some seemingly random number
 >is assigned to the job.  At first I thought it might be be the PID of
 >a process but apparently not.  So, where does this number come from?

It's the i-number of the file in "/usr/spool/cron/atjobs" containing the
commands to run.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: msf@fusion.com (Michael S. Fischbein)
Subject: Re: Customers and Vendors (Was sun and customers)
Reply-To: msf@fsg.com
Organization: Fusion Services Group, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:16:39 GMT

In article <DARYL.92Dec23115048@piano.adept.ih.att.com>, daryl@piano.adept.ih.att.com (55000-Daryl Monge(ih1439)392) writes:

>It should not really matter what HP, Sun, or Dec likes.  What really matters is
>what the customer wants/needs.  Any customers that do not want to make a 
>complete architecture switch from 68K machines were screwed by sun and not
>by HP.  Not everyone needs a 50MIPS workstation.  68040 machines are quite
>capable for many customers.  It really boils down to $$$$.  And cost is more than
>the price of the next box that comes out.

Actually, Sun produced Motorola based boxes until they were about 5% of sales.
The 3/80 and SPARCStation 1 came out simultaneously, along with the 3/470; the
Motorola and SPARC based systems also cost about the same (for similar packages).

However, SPARC based systems were much faster; customers preferred them 10 or 20
to 1.  Further development would have lead to price differences, as similar development
costs were amortized over fewer systems, which would have increased the sales
lead of the SPARC systems...

The 68040 might have made a difference had it been available; for more similar in
performance products (eg, 4/260 and 3/260), the sales difference was much less.
However, it was not available until well after Sun had switched over to SPARC
based systems.  Motorola was invited, I believe, to become a SPARC licensee,
but they wanted to push the 88k.

	mike

-- 

Michael Fischbein, Dir. of Security Services, Fusion Systems Group.
24th Floor, 225 Broadway, New York, NY  1007           msf@fsg.com
Fusion: Supplier of services and solutions to the UNIX marketplace.
These are not necessarily my opinions or those of any other entity.
Xref: sparky comp.sys.sun.misc:5994 misc.forsale.computers.workstation:528
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc,misc.forsale.computers.workstation
Subject: Anybody want a 3/260?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:51:43 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


This is posted for     laitinen@eshop.uoregon.edu
replies to him, not to me, please.

Any interest in a used Sun 3/260?  Know of anyone that wants one?
There is one here on campus up for grabs.  It has 24MB of RAM, two
each 327MB ESDI disk drives, a 60 MB (I think) 1/4" cartridge tape
drive, Ethernet, and an external SCSI port.  This may be worth more
"parted out" than whole.  This machine has been replaced by a SPARCstation-II.
I've been asked to find out what it is worth, etc.   What's your opinion?


-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: fyl@ssc.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:45:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

I have some generic comments on the SunOS vs. UNIX V game.  For those who
don't know SSC, we publish pocket-sized references for computer systems
with our major emphasis on UNIX systems.  I am currently in the process of
completing a new Command Summary that will cover System V, Release 4.2 and
Solaris 2.1.

When we started this project we thought we were just doing a quick update
to our SVR4 summary.  As we got further into the project we realized that:
  1. SVR4.2 is quite different from SVR4
  2. Solaris 2.1 is very close to SVR4.2
Thus, the project evolved into this new (unnamed) product.

That said and having done consulting and teaching on UNIX systems from
Version 7 on as well as XENIX I see what is happening with the
SVR4.2/Solaris combination as a real step in the right direction.
Yes, we can all find fault with a vendor changing our tools but, unlike
many changes in the past this one actually is moving UNIX systems in a
common direction.  A few years ago the idea of of combining our BSD
reference with our System V reference would have been absurd.  Today it is
a reality.

What's wrong is that we are creating a bigger system because of the merge.
Also, some things get broken in the process.  This reminds me a lot of
when the ANSI C standard was evolving.  Many people saw this
standardization as "making C bigger".  I was one of those people until I
had the opportunity to meet many of the members of the committee and talk
to them (Thom Plum, in particular) about the project.  Once I got the
"inside look" I saw that documenting common usage rather than building a
new language was the goal of the project.  Personally I think the end
result both defined a good language that all could use and broke a minimum
of existing code.

I see the Solaris move as very similar.  It needed to happen and getting
our "ducks in a row" before Microsoft is busy telling the world that NT is
Posix compliant and there are too many different versions of the UNIX
system out there seems like the right time.  Making this happen at the
same time as a new hardware release seems like another good decision.

My conclusion is that this decision is in the best interest of both new
users and the UNIX community in general.  Those who have been exclusively
using either System V based systems or BSD based systems will be hurt in
the short term and, yes, systems will get larger and somewhat less
efficient as a result.  But, five years from now, we will all have
benefited from this decision.

Now, let me put on my fireproof suit and wait. :-)
-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
>>> Publishers of pocket references for UNIX, C, VI, Emacs, Ksh, MS-DOS, ... <<<
     ...!ssc!fyl or fyl@ssc.com            (206)527-3385

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: drich@sandman.lerc.nasa.gov (Daniel Rich)
Subject: xcdplayer-2.2 - X11 CD player for Sun and SGI
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:57:00 GMT

I have posted the latest release of XCdplayer to alt.sources.  The current
version will now run on SGI and Sun, and has a set of color defaults.
With the SGI version, you also gain the ability to play through either
the CDROM drive audio jack, or through the SGI audio board (for those
systems so equiped).  This has been tested on both IRIX 4.0.2 and
4.0.5, and will *NOT* work on 4.0.1 (apparently, there are problems
with the audio libraries).

Things to look for in future releases:
    o Motif support (I hope!)
    o Record capibilities (on SGI only)
    o Track and Artist labeling
    o A better programming interface
    o AIX and Ultrix support (maybe....)

For more information, take a look at the man page and README file.  If
you do run into problems or know of any other features you would like to
see (or implement, for that matter :-), please let me know.

Here is the description from the man page:
Xcdplayer is a graphical user interface for controlling the Sun or SGI cdrom
drive under the X Window System.  It provides visual feedback and 
gives the user facilities for mode selection, device control, scanning, and
programming.

Xcdplayer allows previously stored cd title and program information to 
be read from a specified directory and loaded into the player on startup 
or at disc changes.  This directory can be specified either on the command 
line, by using the -cdInfoDir option, by using a customized personal resource 
file, or by setting the environment variable XCDINFODIR.

-- 
Dan Rich                    | drich@lerc.nasa.gov   |  (216) 433-4000
Sr. Systems Engineer        | "Danger, you haven't seen the last of me!"
RMS Technologies, Inc.      |    "No, but the first of you turns my stomach!"
NASA Lewis Research Center  | -- The Firesign Theatre's Nick Danger

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay {Ultra Unix SW Mgr})
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:08:23 GMT

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>I don't understand why 4.1 apps don't work under Solaris? Is it a matter of
>Solaris not having back-compatible shared libraries, or did they break
>something?

Just about every 4.1.x application I've tried on Solaris 2 does work.
This includes large programs like "nn", and programs which do some
pretty complex system calls, like "traceroute".

The key is that the application must be dynamically linked.  Anything
built with -Bstatic on 4.1.x won't work on Solaris 2.x.  I don't know
why, but apparently some 3rd party vendors do use -Bstatic, so their
applications won't work on Solaris 2.


Steve Jay
shj@ultra.com  ...ames!ultra!shj
Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Dagget Drive / San Jose, CA 95134 / USA
(408) 922-0100 x130	"Home of the 1 Gigabit/Second network"
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Keywords: interesting old thought
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:28:02 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1hl1v0INNpic@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
> What are we using UNIX for anyway?  Lest we forget that Multics is the
> One True Operating System

It is.  No smiley.

ian
From: lupe@ukw.uucp (Lupe Christoph)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Keywords: interesting old thought
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:01:56 GMT
Organization: cic

nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.203852.8733@news.arc.nasa.gov>, okuyama@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Darin Okuyama YR) writes:
>> Anything Sun does will hurt some people and help others.  We
>> have to take the hurt with the help, and move on.

>     To another vendor...

>     We don't have to take it, and that's an important point.  Make it clear
>to Sun that you won't take it and they'll either be forced to follow the
>market or go out of business.

>     Write into your purchase orders for new Sun equipment that the purchase
>is conditioned on the equipment being able to run Sun/OS 4.1.x.

... and South Africa is moving away from Apartheit because of the boycott ...
-- 
| ...!unido!ukw!lupe  (German EUNet, "bang")     |  Disclaimer:            |
| lupe@ukw.UUCP       (German EUNet, domain)     |  This is an unofficial  |
| suninfo!alanya!lupe (Sun Germany)              |  opinion of Christoph & |
| Res non sunt complicanda praeter necessitatem. |  Imschweiler Consulting |
From: mjo@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Is Sun losing touch with its customers?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:05:40 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost

In article <16052@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
:>     * HP has 4 architectures: PA-RISC, 3000, 68xxx, x86
:>     * DEC has 4 architectures: Alpha, VAX, MIPS, x86
:>     * IBM has ? architectures: RS/6000, ...
:>
:>     I will bet anything that the number of architectures
:>     will be smaller next year, and the year after that.
:
:Yup.  For example, 68K-based HP machines may have a longer life than
:68K-based Sun machines did, but I suspect HP likes HP-PA more than the
:68K architecture, and that the most interesting HP-UX machines will, in
:the future, be PA machines rather than 68K machines.
:
:(The obvious variant of that will probably apply to DEC as well.)

Another point...  it's not like HP or DEC really care whether they
have the same OS on the x86 technology as well as the PA-RISC or Alpha
technologies.  (I know, some Microsoft weenie is probably screaming
"NT for Alpha" about now.  Let the weenies scream.)  HP has MPE along
with HP-UX on PA-RISC, and of course, there's VMS and OSF/1 on Alpha.

						...Mike

-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
Xref: sparky comp.sys.sun.misc:6087 comp.unix.solaris:447 comp.unix.misc:4785
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: mallopt() a no-op in SunOS 4.1.x?
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:42:28 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>Can anyone either verify or refute the observation that mallopt, although 
>it's present in the C library, seems to be a no-op in SunOS 4.1.x?

Yup, I can verify it.

The *only* place in the 4.1[.x] "malloc()" where it looks at, rather
than just updating, any of the items in its internal "mallinfo"
structure is a place where it updates "smblks"; the comment for that
code reads "kludge to pass the SVVS", and all it does is, based on
whether the number of bytes being returned by "malloc()" is bigger than
"mxfast" or not, increment or not increment "smblks".

The problem is that AT&T embedded the implementation quirks of their
"-lmalloc" version of "malloc()" in the SVID; SunOS has traditionally
used its own "malloc()" implementation - to quote a comment at the
beginning of it, it's

	based on a method described in C.J. Stephenson, "Fast Fits"

(i.e., it's neither the traditional V7 "malloc()", the Caltech
"malloc()" used by BSD, nor the "-lmalloc" implementation in SV) - so
those implementation quirks didn't apply.

In order to obey the "letter of the law", the "mallopt" glop was stuck
in; it doesn't affect the behavior of the implementation, it just
provides some statistics that keep the SVVS happy.
 
>Compiling and running the attached program on a variety of systems -- an
>HP/700 running HP/UX 8, a sparc running SunOS 4.1.1, and a sparc running 
>Solaris 2.1 -- suggests that mallopt actually has some effect in HP/UX 
>and in Solaris, but no effect at all in SunOS 4.

HP-UX probably uses the standard SVR2 or SVR3 "-lmalloc" implementation,
and SunOS 5.x may use the standard SVR4 implementation rather than the
implementation used by previous SunOS releases (I think the SVR4
implementation may be different from the one used by previous SV
systems, as well).
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc
From: eric@redwood047.cray.com (Eric Markwardt)
Subject: Re: New compilers for SunOS 4.1.x
Originator: eric@redwood047
Reply-To: eric@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:22:12 CST


In article <85651@ut-emx.uucp>, grk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Glenn R. Kronschnabl) writes:
> Howdy,
> 
> Anyone know of when Sun plans to release the following compilers for
> SunOS 4.1.x? 
> 
> Sun C 2.0.1, Sun C++ 3.0.1, Sun Fortran 1.2.1 (I think)
> 
> [Note:  the .1 is supposed to be the version for 4.1.x from what
> I've heard.  Correct me if anyone knows more.]
> 
> These are already released for Solaris 2.0.  I don't think there
> is anyway to install from the Solaris distribution.  Believe me,
> I tried.

We received a CD containing the ".1" versions of the following a couple
of weeks ago:

   SPARCworks 2.0.1
   SPARCompiler C 2.0.1
   SPARCompiler C++ 3.0.1
   SPARCompiler FORTRAN 2.0.1
   SPARCompiler Pascal 3.0.1

This CD contains versions for both Solaris 2.x and SunOS 4.1.x -- just
cd into a different directory under /cdrom and either execute
'cdm/cdmanager' or 'pkgadd', depending on your location.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.misc