HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 10:33:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.055321.4375@edsi.plexus.COM> gmeiers@edsi.plexus.COM (Garrett Meiers) writes:
>marks@mgse.UUCP (Mark Seiffert) writes:
>
>>Not my world. Xenix is fine, especially when I am installing a
>>system were there will only be eight or less terminals, typically

>Who said Xenix is limited to 'eight or less' terminals???  The
>Xenix system I'm on now has 13 terminals attached plus the
>console.  3 of those terminals are dial-up.  And we've had them
>all logged in at once...  Unless I'm nuts.  Or in a frantic
>dream...???  
>

Nah, you're not dreaming.  I have one with 19 terminals and 15
printers.   Five printers are system printers, the others are attached
to terminal as local printers.     Not really heavily loaded, but has
room for a lot more.  Couldn't do that without high speed serial
boards.

I had 24 ports of Specialix RIO's and 12 ports of Stallion Onboard.
The Stallion took care of the nearby users and the RIO took care of the
ones scattered around the building.  Finally moved the machine away
from all users and runnng 32 RIO ports.  Considering that the system is
used primarily for database access and word processing it really
doesn't need more than what Xenix has to offer.

>------
>gmeiers@edsi.plexus.com  |   spool!cserver!edsi!gmeiers
>
>...Where theres a will theres a way...and if not, theres always
>              control - alt - delete....


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

Xref: sparky comp.unix.xenix.sco:2884 comp.os.linux:10332 comp.unix.sysv386:14264
From: vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Consensys Powerports
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:49:47 GMT
Reply-To: David Mason <vid@zooid.guild.org>
Organization: The Zoo of Ids

Hello All,

I am going to be expanding my system to 8 lines and possibly more. Recently
someone offered me the Consensys Powerport 16 port board for what seems like a
good price. The alternative is to run two "dumb" (AST) four port boards and
use the FAS drivers. 

Currently we are using Xenix. Ideally I would like to switch to Linux, but the
multi port board support just doesn't seem to be out there. 

My first and most important question is regarding the Powerport boards. The
specs are good but I've been reading that they have problems with using the
Powerports with Consensys' own SVR4. 

Can anyone tell me if the Powerports work well with Xenix? It's vital that
they work reliably and quickly. The system is based on a 386-33 with 8MB and
will be running news and chat along with a number of users (starting at 8).
Would it be faster and more reliable compared to using two dumb boards with
FAS?

Thanks for any and all comments.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: UUXQT during transfers
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 22:46:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.010732.16513@tcsrtp.uucp>
	royc@tcsrtp.uucp (Roy Andrew Crabtree) writes:
>	Bad bug! Bad bug!
>	If uuxqt takes more than 5 minutes, you have a dead space
>		of up to 5 minutes untim the next
>		... or if uuxqt lockout fails more than
>		one uuxqt!

What on earth are you talking about?

-- 
Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | The secret to a long life is
Unicom Systems Development   | knowing when it's time to go.
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   |  - Michelle Shocked
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: vancleef@netcom.com (Henry van Cleef)
Subject: Re: gcc 2.2.2 ?
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 01:14:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom--posted from Andover, Mass.
Distribution: na

In article <MAS.92Sep4234628@csa.bu.edu> mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich) writes:
>
>I've been trying for a while to get gcc 2.2.2 to compile on xenix
>2.3.3, but I'm not having much luck.  Is this possible?  Has anyone
>else already done it?
>
>--

First of all, I changed your "Milky-way" distribution to something
reasonable.  


You will need gcc to bootsrap from.  Binaries of gcc1.40 are available
at anomaly and unix.oakland,edu.


2.2.2 will compile the first pass, using the i386-*-sco definition, but
won't do the second due to COFF conversion.  You will need to set up the
output to go thru either the sco assembler or gas, which I have not yet
done.


-- 
Hank van Cleef---The Union Institute---History of Science and Technology
Unix, X11, networked systems  vancleef@netcom.com, vancleef@tmn.com  
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: rg9538@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (Ronald E Garnett)
Subject: Re: E-Mail address
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:11:03 GMT
Keywords: E-mail

rg9538@ehsn14.cen.uiuc.edu (Ronald E Garnett) writes:

>Please respond to rg9538@ewshp.cen.uiuc.edu

>I'm looking for the E-Mail address of Shawn McMurdo at
>SCO.  I figured this to be the best place to ask.
>The address is probably something like:

>ShawnM@sco.com..........  but I can't find the rest of
>the path.  Any ideas?

>Thanks,

>Ron Garnett
>University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
I receiuved some good help and now know that I knew
what I needed to know before I asked!!

Thanks to all who responded!!!

Regards,

Ron Garnett

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: a LONG TIME? ( was Re: Xenix considered harmful ...)
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:40:29 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP )
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc. - Easton, MD

In article <1992Sep07.010949.8579@ksmith.uucp> keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
>>UNIX has its place and so does Xenix.  And Xenix will continue to be
>>appropriate for a lot of sites for a LONG time to come.
>                                      ^^^^
>How LONG is Long.  While I agree Xenix is useful, read on ...
>being for more than say another 5 years.  Why?
>
>Of course in the computer business 1 year is a LONG time eh?

Keith:
For the next few years (which in computer terms is a LONG time) I don't
think you will see the demise of SCO Xenix.  It is just too big a market.
And as far as wondering what will be around after say 5 years...  I don't 
think many people in this industry can honestly stand up and say ANYTHING.
With major cycles occuring every 2 years or so, 5 years would definitely
require a "crystal ball".

During a recent trip to CA to a software vendor, we reviewed their internal
results of Xenix -vs- whatever in actual sales.  They have over 18,000
installations and over 60% are SCO Xenix, with the rest being a mixture
of DOS, networks, Concurrent DOS, and UNIX.

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:13:35 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <11745@ember.UUCP>, pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:

| From the package size, Smail 3.1 seems like overkill for a small
| UUCP site.  Why is it so large?  Smail 2.7 seems from the hype to
| fit my needs perfectly, but has been "comming soon" for so many
| months that I suspect it'll never actually happen.
| 
| What I'd like is something small that speaks UUCP, understands
| domain addresses and pathalias.  Smail 2.5 did the job reasonably
| well in a previous life, is it still the appropriate choice?

  Smail 2.5 and mush is my choice. I still have a system on mush 6.5
because nothing is broken.

| For the record, I did once install Smail 2.5, but the experience
| was appropriately described by Paul Telles---"an unbelievable amount
| of trouble to rip out the Xenix e-mail system and replace it with
| your own."  While not hugely competent, I have installed enough
| things to know when something is a pain in the neck.  And it wasn't
| Smail 2.5 that was the pain in the neck.

  It depends on how you do it. I have no use for the proprietary SCO
mail thing offered as an alternative. I can't even remember the name of
it, but it might be MICnet, or something like that. If you don't need
that, you compile smail2.5 to use execmail as the local delivery agent,
move rmail to rmail.orig, link smail to rmail, and smile.

  I've done it on a number of systems, and typically it takes about an
hour from floppy to the first cold carbonated beverage. I didn't touch
the SCO mail system beyond that, or maybe I put a link for mail to mush
as well, I don't remember since I always type mush, mailx, or whatever
on all systems to get what I want.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
From: brettw@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett D. Watson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: tcsh for Xenix
Date: 9 Sep 1992 01:10:48 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

  Ok, I read the FAQ, I perused the files at anomaly, and I still find
no reference to tcsh.  Has it been ported to Xenix?  I could live with
csh but I would really rather have tcsh.

-=- Brett
-- 
  Brett Watson, 915 Calflin Rd. Manhattan, KS  66502, (913) 776-5951
  ==================================================================
	brettw@matt.ksu.ksu.edu | brettw@holonet.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 08:47:27 GMT

In article <9209061050.AA05570@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>How about all those segmentation violations that arose from the 286 not
>having hardware memory protection?  The 286 was a bastardized 186, and both
>were brain-dead.  My opinions are based on the hardware, not the OS.
>But again, this is a digression.

Excuse me?

1.  You're not really likely to get "segmentation violation" (or "memory
fault") unless the processor has *some* sort of hardware memory protection,
which the '286 does.  (The '286 has segment-level protection:  read and
write/execute bits on each segment, and a whole nest of other things I don't
really want to get into without having my Intel manuals handy).

2.  If anything, the '186 was a bastardised '286:  they both had the same
base instruction set and features, except that the '286 added a "protected
mode," four more bits of addressing (software and hardware), and, of course,
instructions to deal with all of that.

For what it was intended, and the time and market, the '286 was mostly
adequate.  It does not use a C/UNIX memory model, however, being closer to
something Pascal would have an eaiser time dealing with, but people have
coped.  Intel did screw up in some areas on it, but not really the ones most
people claim.

But, then, most people don't seem to think about Intel when they flame it;
they just seem to assume that, since everyone else *says* it, Intel *must*
be horrible, evil, and drain-bamaged.

Kinda like the U.S. political system, actually.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
-----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura)
Subject: Re: Xenix questions
Organization: Guru Systems/Funware Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:40:03 GMT

In <grendel.716430974@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer) writes:

>1)  What ever happened to the talk about some 3rd party library and header
>    files for Xenix/gcc?

Dunno.

>2)  Does the last version of the SCO Xenix Dev. System compile the source into
>    32 or 16 bit binaries?

Both. By default it compiles 32 bit binaries, but you can give it
Options to compile 16 bit binaries.

>3)  How does one go about creating an /u filesystem after installation has
>    already been completed?

mkdev fs?
-- 
				Christoph Badura  ---  bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org

ISO? Nicht immer, aber immer M-vfter.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:14:47 GMT

In <1992Sep13.233934.19638@golem.uucp> davidf@golem.uucp (David J. Fiander) writes:

:According to terry@unx.ucc.okstate.edu (Terry J. Klarich):
:>
:>I run a xenix 2.3.3 system at home.  I have used mmdf for about 2 years on my
:>machine.  I ftped the sources and got it up and running without trouble.  mmdf
:>and mh makes for a nice mail system.
:>

:They certainly do!  This is exactly what I'm running.  I like
:MMDF because it is easy to understand and modify the
:configuration, and it places less of a load on my tiny machine

Easy to understand for you maybe, but you've been deeply involved
with mmdf for several years now.  I went to your seminar on mmdf
at SCO Forum '91 and didn't understand much more after 1.5
hours of seminar than I did when I went in :-).  I would like to
see something that explains mmdf for the smail 2.5 user, perhaps
an O'Reilly book.

:than sendmail or smail do.  The biggest advantage the monlithic
:mailers have over MMDF is the fact that they take less disk
:space.

Sounds like good arguments to me.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: stv@ferret.uucp (Steve Manning)
Subject: Re: '/etc/wtmp' how to control it's size
Summary: use 'ln' instead of 'mv'
Organization: The Manning's at home
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:45:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.230657.7071@chinacat.unicom.com>
	 chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>I think the best scheme would be something along the following:
>	>/etc/nwtmp
>	chmod 644 /etc/nwtmp
>	chown bin /etc/nwtmp
>	chgrp bin /etc/nwtmp
>	mv /etc/wtmp /etc/owtmp		# race condition opened here
>	mv /etc/nwtmp /etc/wtmp		# race condition closed here

I think that using 'ln' would reduce the race condition window significantly.
Replace the two 'mv' commands with the following:

	ln /etc/wtmp /etc/owtmp
	ln /etc/nwtmp /etc/wtmp
	rm /etc/nwtmp

The second 'ln' will effectively 'rm' /etc/wtmp and then immediately
replace it with the new file.  This way, the race contidition exists
only for a brief instant *during* the execution of the 'ln' command.
With the first method, the condition exists *between* the execution
of the two 'mv' commands, and the shell has to parse the second line
before it can be executed.  (Question: would putting the two commands
on the same line separated by a semi-colon be faster?  I suspect that
the shell would parse both commands before executing the first one,
but I'm just guessing.)

The 'ln' method would also be appropriate for the suggestion someone
else posted that involved copying /etc/utmp to /etc/wtmp.

While tracking login data isn't the most crucial function in the world,
I think that this technique could come in handy at other times.
-- 
Steve Manning   stv%ferret@introl.introl.com  stv@ferret.uucp
Milwaukee, WI       ...!introl!ferret!stv   etc., etc., etc.
      "...but you're wrong, Steve. You see, it's only Solitaire" I.A.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: marks@mgse.UUCP (Mark Seiffert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:44:03 GMT
Organization: mgse

In article <1193@consult.UUCP> bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP ) writes:
|In article <1992Sep04.055321.4375@edsi.plexus.COM> gmeiers@edsi.plexus.COM (Garrett Meiers) writes:
|>>Not my world. Xenix is fine, especially when I am installing a
|>>system were there will only be eight or less terminals, typically
|>
|>Who said Xenix is limited to 'eight or less' terminals???  The
|>Xenix system I'm on now has 13 terminals attached plus the
|>console.  3 of those terminals are dial-up.  And we've had them
|>all logged in at once...  Unless I'm nuts.  Or in a frantic
|>dream...???  

To Garrett Meiers:
If you will re-read my post you will notice that I was saying that
there is no need to install SCO Unix when the majority of my customers
are using less than 8 terminals. MOST of them are just using the console.
There is a differance between saying that "when I am installing" and "I 
can only install".

|
|No dream. We have several sites in the 20-25 terminal range under
|SCO Xenix running just fine.  We have one site running on an IBC XLA
|box (proprietary internals) running SCO Xenix with 55 terminals and
|running apps like Informix.  And the system has been very stable.
|
|So there is no 8 terminal limit...  When making a decision it requires
|looking at the overall systems, # of terminals, # of active terminals,
|# of printers, # of graphics printers, types of applications, typical
|mix of applications, and any other considerations just as dial-ins,
|faxmodems and the like.

Our development system averages 40 users logged in at a time with 120+
gettys running. This is one a Intel 486/30 and it runs dog slow. We have
been told that when Xenix has a large number of users (or processes) that
Xenix will run slow and SCO UNIX will run faster in a similiar situation.
So we will be switching to Unix for our development system as soon as we
get as much software upgraded to Unix as we can.

Mark Seiffert

|
|-- 
|>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
|>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
|>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
|>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<


-- 
Mark Seiffert,  Metairie, LA.
uucp:           rex.cs.tulane.edu!mgse!marks or rex!mgse!marks
bitnet:         marks%mgse@REX.CS.TULANE.EDU
internet:       marks%mgse@rex.cs.tulane.edu or marks@mgse.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: FAS2.10 and fd problems??
Keywords: fas2.10
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:15:26 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco

Has anyone but me seen problems trying to use the floppy disks while
FAS2.10 is doing a file transfer at high speed? I thought my 3-1/2 drive
was going bad, but I don't believe that both drives or the FD portions
of two controllers are all bad.

I hope this isn't the case, but before I take the system down again,
I'll ask if others are having this problem.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
"I haven't had time to read the manual, I've been too
   busy fighting with the install" -Nevius
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:05:30 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP )
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc. - Easton, MD

In article <Bu1rv1.5Ku@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.110046.10391@zooid.guild.org> Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>For running a Public Access Unix site I can't really think of a
>>better alternative.  Reliability and more efficient use of CPU,
>
>That's interesting.  I would have thought that for a public-access
>site, things like compatibility with the PD software out there and
>similarity with other Unix systems would be important.  Xenix systems
>are not usually known for these qualities.
>

Why do you consider SCO Xenix to be not compatible with PD software?
There is about 100mb worth of PD software up on anomaly for SCO Xenix..??
That sounds pretty compatible to me....  As far as similarity to other 
UNIX systems, what are you trying to get at.

The more everyone out there discusses "Standards" and "Open Systems" the 
further from that we go.  The basic fact is that software companies
thrive and survive on "being different" and establishing a niche.  If 
everyone was the same, it would simply be a price issue and be very negative
to the whole industry.

Fancy features and whizzy options are nice, if you have the money to spend
and need those type of functions.  However for a small business with a 
4-5 terminal system to run their accounting, maybe a word processor like
WordPerfect, and a few other applications, then SCO Xenix works just great
, has adequate (and normally more than they need) security, has good
communications capability for us to connect them via uucp for support.
That has always been the basis of our discussion.  It works great and is
the best choice for a lot of customers.  Don't ignore it just because it
is not the latest and greatest and the whizbang'iest of all.....

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: ins217t@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew J. Cosgriff !)
Subject: gcc & other Xenix binaries
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:58:00 GMT

Where can i get hold of gcc for Xenix, as well as other useful
binaries...?
(cc won't compile tcsh et al. properly !!!)

Thanx in advance,

Cos !
-----
ins217t@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au
From: rob@csi.on.ca (Rob McAteer)
Subject: Re: Consensys Powerports
Organization: Carp Systems International
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:11:24 GMT

vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:

>My first and most important question is regarding the Powerport boards. The
>specs are good but I've been reading that they have problems with using the
>Powerports with Consensys' own SVR4. 
We run Consensys on a 486 and tried out the Powerport board and it did not
work (and our sys admin guy IS a wizard 8^).  Consensys could not get it
to work.
Also, they would not honour their money back garantee without a LOT of
phone calls (expensive) and argueing.  I would recommend not using the 
Powerport board.  We should have known when they asked for a certified
cheque before sending the hardware to us!!!

-- 
Rob McAteer                                   CAnet: rob@csi.on.ca
Carp Systems International                    Voice: (613) 592-5780
600 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 200                  Fax: (613) 592-0584
Kanata, Ontario, Canada     K2L 4B6