HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs)
Subject: Re: Coherrent Unix
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:55:54 GMT

From article <1992Oct1.203839.6097@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, by pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth):
> In article <1992Sep30.151811.1@email.bony.com> srico@email.bony.com writes:
>>Does anyone know about Conherrent Unix for the 386, what about the new 
>>release?
>>
>>Is it a full development environment?
> There may also be a Coherent newsgroup (comp.os.coherent?) but I don't
> know about that.
> 

Yes, comp.os.coherent is a newsgroup (and an active one).

Mark Williams Corporation, the maker of Coherent, is on the net as

          sales@mwc.com

-John D. Boggs     john-boggs@uiowa.edu

Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit:28 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:215
From: dinesh@pyramid.COM (Dinesh Jalisatgi)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: How to make X work on PC.
Keywords: X on 386 PC.
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:43:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: shadow.eng.pyramid.com


 Hi,

  Has any one successfully loaded X on  Pc using 386BSD from Jolitz.

 I needed help as to how to make it work. I loaded it on my PC and was having problem 

 makeing it run. It was looking for a file /dev/vga . Is this file to be created or it exists when we

 load the system.

 Thanks.

 Dinesh.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit
Subject: Re: Coherrent Unix
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:04:29 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Oct4.111751.16212@newstand.syr.edu> wilcox@erc.cat.syr.edu (Maynard Wilcox) writes:
>
>In partial answer to the question is Coherent a full development system the answer has to be almost. A discussion in comp.os.coherent was about importing PERL and the problem seemed to be the YACC that came with Coherent was severly crippled. However the
 importation of BISON proved to be easy into Coherent however it introduced
anther host of problems that had not been overcome. Now Larry Wall has one
hell of a setup program and if a popular utility like PERL hasn't been done
yet I would reserve the prob
al>
>ity of Coherent as a full blown development system ok :-) Mark Williams may live or die by the Creavate Utilitor ( let the user beware)(sp)   

Hmmm.  I've had good luck with yacc on Coherent 3.x and 4.0.

When I compile gnu sources on 4.0, I just change bison to yacc in the makefile,
and type make.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo)
Subject: Re: The inevitable question: Xwindows
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:05:27 GMT

In <Bv3twq.DtM@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>jblaine@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Jeff Blaine) writes:
>>Linux has X ported to it as well.

>How about TCP/IP, NFS and SMTP?

TCP/IP is in alpha stage ... check comp.os.linux.

-- budi
-- 
Budi Rahardjo <rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
From: pcolsen@super.org (Peter C Olsen)
Subject: Re: Many questions..
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:40:11 GMT

In article <BvBM4u.GF2@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>If you don't have a large hunk of cash around, you might
>want to think real hard about going SCSI for your disks -- this will
>let you get several "small" drives (200MB or so) over a period of
>time, rather than the SLED (single large expensive disk) strategy that
>you need to use with ESDI or IDE.

Does either Linux or 386BSD (the PD one) support SCSI drives?

Peter

-- 
Peter Olsen, PE, n2ell, 410-997-8584, PO Box 410, Simpsonville, MD 21150-0410
 pcolsen@super.super.org  ...!uunet!super!pcolsen  (Home: ...!n2ell!pcolsen)
     "Imagination is more important than knowledge" --- Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Oct1.202105.5690@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>In article <9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Coherent is a better choice for someone who doesn't want to recompile the
>>kernel, the compiler, and every command in the system once a week.
>
>Pshaw.  This is a ridiculous exaggeration and simply not true.

Comp.os.linux can give someone that impression.  Every time gcc gets 
upgraded, certain things seem to stop working.  Although it doesn't 
seem to be as bad now as a few months ago.

A friend of mine was running 0.12.  It seemed to run pretty well.  But
he was never able to get X working.  I posted to the net with specific
questions that included the type of video card nd monitor that he was
using.  The email responses were mostly, "if you figure it out will
you email me?".  We gave up after a week.  And both of us have set up
X on commercial UNIX boxes.

He tried to upgrade gcc, but he couldn't get it to compile itself.  The
doc files that he had were sparsely written, and seemed to contain a lot
of conflicting information.  And at that time the Linux FTP sites appeared
to have wildly different revisions of software.

He finally gave up, and he is now running OS/2.

I like Linux, and I will probably set up a 386SX machine so that I can
fool around with Linux and 386BSD.  I have more experience than he does
with porting software, and debugging other peoples sources, and I will
probably get things up and running in a reasonable time frame.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Keywords: Linux, Coherent, comparisons, *_OPINIONS_* ;^)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:48:26 GMT

In article <1406@pacsoft.com> mike@pacsoft.com (Mike Stefanik) writes:
> "If they have been hacking on UNIX-like kernels for the past 10 years or so,
> why is it that in 1992 they *just* came to market with a 32-bit flavor which
> still lacks virtual memory, networking and other essentials?"

Because they did not consider them essentials. They were selling Coherent
for 80286 and (I believe) 8088 based systems, and they were selling it for
real-time, near-real-time, and low-end applications.

	Real-time and virtual memory just isn't easy to do. The only system
I've used that managed it was RSX11-M (though I'm sure there are others).

	Virtual memory hurts performance, particularly in a swapping
environment like you'd have on an 8088 or 80286.

One could as well ask:

"If they have been hacking on real-time UNIX-related kernels for the past
15 years or so (MERT was discussed in the UNIX BSTJ issue in the mid '70s)
why is that in 1992 AT&T *still* hasn't produced a viable real-time UNIX?"

> I would guess that they *chose* not to for non-technical reasons;

They chose not to for *technical* reasons. It would have impacted their
ability to provide the performance characteristics they were aiming for.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Subject: Re: X fascination 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:50:04 GMT
Organization: Messina Software

In article <1992Sep25.091538.29277@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> writes:

> Also, X is state of the art.

Bitmaps, state of the art?


t.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Running X and Xremote on a PC clone, do you do it? Dell comments
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:57:13 GMT

robertb@cs.washington.edu (Robert Bedichek) writes:

>Side question: what do users of Dell UNIX think of their Dell's version
>of UNIX?  How is the support?  Do you think they are really committed
>to the product?  A sales guy at Dell gave me the impression that their
>UNIX was a minor side show, makes me wonder whether or not they will be
>updating for a couple of years.  

Do back through comp.unix.sysv386 and read the archives.  Dell SVR4
is stable and runs and runs -- and can't be beat in the market for
performance, reliablity and features.  No other product comes close
on all three areas.

>Their fastest machine, a 66 MHz 486, won't run their own UNIX because
>"it is too fast for UNIX."  It is amazing and disturbing to me that

Hmm.  Interesting.  I've run Dell on 386/20, 386/25, 386/33, 386/40, 
486/33 and currently on a 486/50 without any problems..

>problem fairly quickly.  Does Dell contract out their OS work?  If

Dell has their own internal support and development team.  Dell has
a reputation of fixing bugs in the base product while others 
just ship out the door what they get in (including bugs and features
which don't work).

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: X fascination (was Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone))
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.091538.29277@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> int177c@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Jae Won) writes:
> If you compare MGR with X...that's like comparing an XT with a 486. I have ran
> MGR and was quite dissappointed by its uselessness

Well, if your main application is running xterms what's the difference?

> (admittedly, I didn't have too many programs to work with).

Ah, a shortage of applications. Yes, I think that's to be expected simply
from marketing considerations. Also, MGR puts more of the smarts in the server
and the existing server is pretty minimal.

> Also, X is state of the art.

For 1984 or so, yes.

MGR is based on the state of the art in 1982. (Blit terminals, etc)

The last attempt to bring the state of the art past 1984 died horribly.
The closest next attempt is NeXTStep, which is being widely ignored.

> Do you seriously think Windows NT will be useful?

Yes, for people with a lot of money for a single-user workstation, and
no interest in doing anything but running canned applications, it will
be terribly useful.

For the rest of us, it will be awful.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: julian@tfs.com (Julian Elischer)
Subject: Re: EISA and 386BSD
Keywords: UNIX, PC compatibles, 32 bit
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:47:07 GMT

In article <38857@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> john@sdacs.ucsd.edu (John Boyd) writes:
>Does anyone know whether the current releases of 386BSD or 386i Unix will
>even work on an EISA machine?  I haven't actually heard about anyone
>who has one up and running.  I have heard from sources that some of
>the releases will not run on an EISA machine.  Anyone know otherwise?
>
>jsb
definitly does.
I have 2 of them hummin along here.

julian

+----------------------------------+       ______ _  __
|   __--_|\  Julian Elischer       |       \     U \/ / On assignment
|  /       \ julian@tfs.com        +------>x   USA    \ in a very strange
| (   OZ    ) 2118 Milvia st. Berkeley CA. \___   ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/  USA+(510) 704-3137(wk)           \_/   \\            
          v
From: hcrms@usmi03.midland.chevron.com (Mitchell S. Craig)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: X fascination (was Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone))
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:34:58 GMT
Organization: Chevron

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams) writes:
>
>>16MB ram costs less than >>$500,
>
>So I can spend $500 in order to run a free windowing system?  

8 MB works fine for me. 8 x $30 = $240 for 1 MB SIMMS
(less if you already have some). The added memory will make
your life easier in many situations besides running X.

Mitch
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: SCO
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:48:18 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

I'd like to preface my remarks thusly: SCO has a lot to answer for in
their unbundled pricing.  Their packaging the Dev Sys separately makes
me quite upset, and upgrades cost much more than a mere human should
be expected to pay.  However, the issues at hand are technical, not
monetary, so...

According to kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger):
>"Not V7 technology with proprietary (and standard) enhancements".

I'm sorry, but "standardness of extentions" is not a qualification for
"real UNIX", or else no UNIX on the market could be called "real".
What's left is "V7 plus enhancements", and the products of SCO, Dell,
Esix, and even IBM (argh!) meet that criterion.

>That's ok -- IF you know what you're getting.

This whole discussion is based on what _is_, not what advertising
flackery may be published by suits of any company.

>>>4)	SCO's compiler has always, in my opinion, been brain-dead.
>>
>>Granted... but GCC2 remedies that problem easily.
>
>Why should I have to load someone else's compiler when the one which comes
>with the system SHOULD be up to the task?

No argument that SCO _deserves_ criticism for saddling its systems
with the Microsloth compiler.  No argument!  But it's always worth
noting the difference between big problems and small problems.  I
consider SCO's compiler a small problem: it's so easy to replace.

>My definition of "Real Unix", as is many people's, includes "comes
>with a working compiler".

Microsloth's compiler is a working compiler.  It may not work as well
as we'd like, but it does work.

>I was always left with the feeling "why do I have to say "-Mlet500"
>with this frigging piece of code to get it to compile?

With this sentence, you've moved from criticism to disinformation.
SCO is not responsible and cannot be held responsible for the idiocy
of the '286 and its tiny segments.  The fact that you could run Xenix
_at_all and compile those programs _at_all_ is a testament to the
ingenuity of SCO's (and, yes, Microsloth's) programmers.

And I've _never_ had to use those flags from Xenix/386 2.2 forward.

> "has networking support"

Bundled with ODT.  Yes, ODT is overpriced, but it exists.

> "has symlinks, long filenames"

"It's in there" with 3.2v4.

> ">65k inodes/filesystem"

Granted, that's missing.  But I don't consider the lack of this one
feature to take SCO out of the "real UNIX" category.

>Besides - once you use a system which isn't based on SVR3 or earlier, and
>see the real performance improvements from the VM enhancements which were
>made to SVR4, you wonder why you ever put up with less.

Perhaps.  Still, performance does not "real UNIX" make.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: pdhatchm@socs.uts.edu.au (Paul Hatchman)
Subject: Re: X fascination (was Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone))
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:59:54 GMT

dak@kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:

>hcp@csx.cciw.ca (H.C. Pulley) writes:


>>I agree completely.  I don't understand this widespread fascination with X.  It
>>is a huge piece of software demanding great CPU and disk resources.
>Use the Gnu C-Compiler with optimizing. The source code of X contains many
>hacks using Gnu assembler templates. This betters performance considerably.

>But still it's a memory hog.

* laugh *

I run X on a 486-50. The server rarely uses up more than 10% of CPU time.
(Usually about 5%). The server is using less than 2MB at the moment and has 
been running most of the day. 

The X server plus numerous clients + manuals + libraries etc takes up about 30MB

Now I dont really call this excessive .. do you?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hatchman                      |    <this line intentionally left blank>
Systems Programmer,                |    pdhatchm@socs.uts.edu.au (prefered)    
Sydney Futures Exchange, Australia |       paulh@uts.edu.au 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hatchman                      |    <this line intentionally left blank>
Systems Programmer,                |    pdhatchm@socs.uts.edu.au (prefered)    
Sydney Futures Exchange, Australia |       paulh@uts.edu.au
From: hcrms@usmi03.midland.chevron.com (Mitchell S. Craig)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Running X and Xremote on a PC clone, do you do it?  Dell comments
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:36:14 GMT
Organization: Chevron

(Marc Unangst) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.041154.8144@nntpserver.chevron.com> hcrms@crinoid.chvpkh.chevron.com writes:
>>(In order to load Dell Unix you need)
>>250 MB QIC tape or DAT tape. How many of us can afford those
>>kind of tape drives for our PCs? (Especially after spending $999.99
>>on the OS :-}
>
>So what kind of tape drive *do* you have?
>
A Wangtek 5150-ES, SCSI 150 MB QIC, cost about $600 in January.
I'm running it off an Adaptec 1542-B. Are any of you using 4mm or 8mm
tape drives? Could you please comment on cost, and what you're using
for a controller? Has anyone tried a Wangdat, Exabyte, (or HP??) 4mm 
or 8mm drive with the Adaptec controller? what flavor of UNIX?

Also, can someone please explain why Adaptec's 16-bit
SCSI controller (the 1542B) is used with 386DX's whereas their 32-bit 
controller (the 1742) is used with 486 - EISA machines
(is this correct?). Both are full 32-bit machines, right?.
Is there some reason why a 32-bit SCSI controller 
won't work with an ISA machine?

                    Mitch
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: The evitable question -- MGR
	Re: The inevitable question: Xwindows
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:58:05 GMT

Anyone working on MGR for 386BSD or Linux?

The answer could decide me on which I go for.

If not, is anyone interested on helping with a port?
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Problem with TCP/IP and NFS with Intel UNIX
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.170952.3071@ednor.bbc.com> cgf@ednor.bbc.com (Chris Faylor) writes:
> Every so often the network just goes away.  The system continues to run
> but ping's/rlogin's etc. fail.  This is always caused by heavy NFS access
> to a SPARC host.  The SPARC is running SunOS 4.1.1.

We've had this problem with RFS access from Sparc, and a similar problem
with Oracle, OpenNET, and Interlan TCP. The RFS problem was caused by nserv
growing out of bounds. The Oracle problem is related to an exhaustion of 64
byte buffers in the kernel: it seems something was allocating buffers and
never freeing them. I suggest you use "crash" and look at "strstat". Please
post your results.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                          `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                               'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                           Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid ?
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: USL's SVR4.2, when?
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:55:45 GMT
Distribution: comp.unix.sysv386
Organization: A/C International

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>UnixWare = Destiny + Univel added value
>Dell 4.2 = Destiny + Dell added value
>ESIX 4.2 = Destiny + ESIX added value
>etcetera...

Has Dell, in fact, made any announcement regarding an upgrade of their SVr4
to the Destiny-based product?
-- 

uunet!media!ka3ovk!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Many questions..
Organization: Texaco
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:02:50 GMT

In article <!bjz7lb@rpi.edu>, gallatin@altair.cs.rpi.edu (Andrew Gallatin) writes:
|> Hi,
|> 
|> I'm wondering what sort of configuration (processor, ram & disk
|> space)for a pc would be recommended to run the following:
|> 
|> 	linux
|> 	emacs
|> 	gcc (& is g++ available?)
|> 	X windows (with include files & libs, not just server..)
|> 	TeX & xdvi
|> 	
|> Would something like a 486-DX w/4M ram  & 100M hd provide enough power
|> and storage space?
|> 

Get a fast processor--33Mhz minimum.  100Meg sounds really small.  If
you get the original distribution of TeX, it will take about 50Meg just
to unpack and compile. ( At least thats what it took on my Sparcstation. )
You can easily trim it back to 25Meg or less, depending on how many fonts
and support packages you want.
The X11R5 distribution takes 111Meg just to unpack.  There is no way you
could ever compile it.  You could probably get it in compiled form from
someone else.
Gnu emacs takes about 15 Meg to compile.  It can be trimmed back to only 
a couple of Meg if you get rid of the source code.  
I don't know how much linux and gcc will take, but my advice is
to get as much hard disk as you can possibly afford.  I am saving up to
buy a 600 Meg drive. I am sure I will eventually grow into it. :^)  
4Meg of ram is also a little small,  8 Meg would be better.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
From: sthomas@worldbank.org (Sidney F. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Help! 386BSD and Linux (Was Re: Attempted Summary: UNIX on a PC)
Organization: The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:26:32 GMT

Success!  I got X-windows to work under linux, thanks to
the kind souls on the net (Wayne Hodgen, Louis Ruppert, and
Larry D. Pyeatt) who gave me the jump start I needed.  
The key was learning how to invoke X-windows ... I would never
have guessed that the command would be "startx" (smiley!).  
Then using "man startx", I could kind of work my way forward,
fiddling with Xconfig, .xinitrc, etc., and using "man" a few
more times along the way before I could finally get it to work.  
I've got Windows 3.1 working on my DOS partition, and I
seem to remember it was a _little_ bit easier to get working
(smiley!).  However, twm looks great -- better than Windows
IMHO -- and I look forward to playing around with it ... 
after getting some more RAM.

SUGGESTION: for future X newbies, a README.X file somewhere
in the SLS distribution giving the necessary first introduction
to configuring and using X-windows would be very useful.  
Then, when such a newbie posts to the net asking how to get
the damn thing working, I'll take a leaf from Wayne's book and tell
him to RTFM!! (Joking!).  Thanks again.

--Sidney Thomas
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit