HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Announcing the availability of XFree86 1.1
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194931.16296@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.215041.17541@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
>
>| This, by the way, is a perfect example of why SVR4 is better than SCO.
>| We have a single binary kit, ~20MB compressed, that works on SVR4 from 7 
>| different vendors.  
>
>This may come as a shock, but V.3 worked that way, too, and Xenix/386
>binaries will run on virtually anything. And SCO binaries compiles for
>8086 running in compatible library mode (-compat?) will run all the way
>back to old Altos, etc, and forward to Destiny.

Sorry to disagree here, but the Altos 886 and 986 I used to play with
wouldn't rung SCO binaries no matter what contortions you went through.  I
did have a copy of SCO's 8086 Xenix for a while, and it's binaries ran on
a 986 (sorta), but this is apparently a long dead product.

886 and 986 binaries on the other hand, had no trouble running on SCO.

The SCO 80286 (and only the 80286) binaries created in compatability mode
*did* run on Intel 320's and Cubix boxes for "Medium" and "Small" models.

The main problem is incompatabilites in /usr/include/sys/*.h files; in
particular, ioctl() parameters for device controls (like setting a terminal
in "raw" mode) and a number of librarie routines (like "getlogname()")
failed on the SCO-on-Altos but not on the Altos-on-SCO code.  In addition,
the SCO-on-Altos on worked on some models of Altos, like the 1086 and 2086,
and revisions of Altos Xenix in excess of 3.1c (where Altos fixed their
sbrk() system call).

SCO Xenix is a tight, fast system (especially compared to UNIX), but for
bode for distribution I always compiled on an Altos developement system
loaded on an SCO box... loading it is a trip, but ends up being worth
it.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dsiegel@optima.UUCP (Dave Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: 486, Local Bus, S3 upgrade
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:06:40 GMT

From article <1992Oct5.232742.15582@networx.com>, by ledford@networx.com (Don Ledford):
> I'm currently running ESIX 4.0 with SGCS X11R5 on a 386-25 with an awful
>     Local Bus S3 card                       Orchid (Fahrenheit 1280)

I didn't think that you could run X off of the S3 cards.  Something about there
not being any Device drivers for it.  I asked Dell about this, and they
said certainly not.  It seems reasonable that this would also be true about
ESIX, since the X servers are roughly equivalent.

-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."
From: bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:37:34 GMT
Organization: Guru Systems/Funware Department

In <BvKHyL.7Fs@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>>Base system running in 2MB RAM, 40 MB hard disk. Compilers or X in 4 MB.
>You want all of 1992's features to run on 1987 hardware.

Why not. For a surprise try the 386BSD boot floppy one of these days.
Everything you want in V4 in a <400K kernel.
-- 
				Christoph Badura  ---  bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org

AIX is a better... is a better...  is a better... OpenSystem.
					IBM Rep at GUUG Symposium '92
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering)
Subject: Re: Does/Will FAS support the BocaBoard 16-port card?
Organization: Private UNIX Site
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:48:50 GMT

bob@obiwan.uucp (Bob Willcox) writes:

>The 16-port BocaBoard card (BB2016, I believe) looks like it could be
>pretty interesting (appears to have full modem and hardware flow control
>for all 16 ports) but, does or will FAS support it?  I'm considering
>buying one but really need FAS to support it.

I don't know this card. Is it a dumb port card with 16450 or NS16550A
UART chips?

      Uwe
-- 
Uwe Doering  |  INET : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de
Berlin       |----------------------------------------------------------------
Germany      |  UUCP : ...!unido!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: bjornw@colargol (Bjoern Wennberg)
Subject: ISC-3.0 mount problem
Organization: Colargol, Trondheim College of Engineering
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:18:56 GMT


Hi!

MACHINE:486 PC
OS:Interactive 3.0 sysvr3.2
PROBLEM:mounting nfs filesystems 

machine A runs SYSVR4 and machine B runs ISC:
from machine A I write:mount -F nfs -orw,soft,fg B:/home /home
nfs mount: B:/home: server not responding: RPC: Program not registered
nfs mount: retrying: /home
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Problems with SCO Authentication System
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:48:32 GMT

In <SARNILA.92Oct9014541@tukki.jyu.fi> sarnila@tukki.jyu.fi (Pekka Sarnila) writes:

:<Descriping problems with SCO security database, etc.>

:Suggested sollutions:

:1) Get an other UNIX (e.g. SunSoft INTERACTIVE)

:2) If previous is impossible, Try coping /etc/login from other machines
:   that work right or from the system diskets. In v4 there are several
:   different version of /etc/login in different packages; some of them
:   don't work right. You've now got the one loaded last. The one in the
:   basic package should be OK. Again the problem might be somewhere else.
:   Let me know if you find the sollution. Unfortunately for my bread I
:   got to fight with SCO UNIX.

On SCO UNIX 3.2 v4 you can run with standard UNIX security.
There are instructions in the release notes on how to remove the
authorization databases.  There are even a few things in the
security enhancements which are pretty nice -- the ability to
automatically remove setuid permissions for file when it's
overwritten can prevent some forms of carelessnes from biting too
bad.  These can be left in (kernel configuration parameters) even
after removing the security database stuff.

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.sysv386
From: TCOM@SCSMTA.SWITCH.CH (TCOM)
Subject: File system journaling under ISC
Organization: SWISS ACADEMIC NETWORK
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:25:17 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22


Within the last few weeks we have had some Kernel Panics and System failures.
Since we are developing a critical communications application, we need
something to prevent from any data loss. Is there a program that does file
system journaling available for Interactive Unix Sys V Rel 3.2 Version 3.0?

Thanks a lot for your help in advance!!

Kind regards,

Beat Erb
from foggy Switzerland...
From: alanlb@bethesda.cs.vt.edu (Alan L. Batongbacal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Wanted: 4mm/8mm drive recommendations
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:12:35 GMT

Hi there!  I am considering the purchase of either a 4mm or 8mm
tape drive for backup purposes, to be connected alternately to
a generic 486-class machine with an Adaptec 1542, running Novell
netWare *and* to another 486 running ISC Unix 3.0.  I need something
in the 2GB capacity class.  Is there any particular make/model
e.g. Exabyte EXB-8200, that is generally held in high regard by this
group?

Thanks!

alan l. batongbacal
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: rob@xyzoom.info.com (Rob Lingelbach)
Subject: ISC update: v3.1?
Organization: Altruistic Intentions, Hollywood, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:43:17 GMT

I heard recently that SunSoft plans to release an update to ISC
version 3.0 (SVR3.2) this fall that will include symbolic links, long
filenames, and the Korn Shell.  I was surprised to hear this because I
thought SunSoft's upgrade path for ISC users was going to be to
Solaris 2.0.  

Can anyone confirm or deny the information? 

--Rob

-- 
Rob Lingelbach KB6CUN | 2660 Hollyridge Dr LA CA 90068 213 464 6266 (voice) 
rob@xyzoom.info.com   | "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or 
robl@netcom.com       |  cat are not the better for it."  --Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: ed@maxed.amg.com (Ed Whittemore)
Subject: Re: Unix: Cacheing EISA SCSI vs. Non-cacheing EISA SCSI Controllers
Organization: American Micro Group, Ft. Lee  NJ
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.192743.17814@PacBell.COM> j4jbail@srv.PacBell.COM (Jack Bailey) writes:
>The consensus among the participants of this discussion seems to
>be that disk cacheing controllers are a waste of money.  My
>opinion is that it depends upon the situation.
>
>A friend of mine in the consulting business has a client running
>a database application on Interactive 3.0.  The system is a
>486/33 EISA with 32M memory.  Originally the system was
>configured with the Adaptec 17xx (I don't remember the number).
>
>Normally there are about 7 users banging on the 10-12M database
>throughout the day.  The client considered the overall
>performance of the application acceptable, with the exception of
>one report which took just over 15 minutes to run.  Further, the
>performance of the system was poor while the report was being
>run.  The report was being run often enough to warrant some
>action.
>
>Money not being a problem, the consultant installed a PSI
>controller with 4M memory, using the driver provided by
>Interactive.  Not much difference, perhaps worse.  With 8M
>memory, there was a noticeable improvement.  The current
>configuration is 20M cache.  The system "feels" tremendously
>fast.  The report now take 9 minutes to run, and while it is
>running, no one seems to notice.
>
>To counter "the disk blocks are already cached by UNIX" argument,
>I just logged in and made a new kernel.  22 seconds.
>
>Here are a couple of other important details: no kernel tuning
>whatsoever was done after the installation.  The database itself
>is some proprietary hodge-podge junk pile.  No attempt was made
>to install or test the database on a 2K filesystem or the VFFS.
>Normally the system does no swapping.
>
>I'm not arguing whether or not other alternatives should have
>been explored.  My point is that making blanket statements
>are simply generalizations as should be treated as such.
>
>-- 
>J.J.Bailey	j4jbail@srv.pacbell.com
>Contractor	510.823.6453

To make the comparison fair you would have to allocate buffers of
a similar size ( as that in the hardware cache  )to the OS, via
NBUF/ NHBUF or BUFHWM, and then compare. 

We've done that, and invite others to do the same. Let me be clear.
Compare a cacheing controller with a 16 MB hardware cache and an
Adaptec 174(x) with with a similary large static (SVR3.2) or dynamic
(SVR4) buffer, or pick your own cache size.

But don't compare an untuned, unconfigured kernel/174(x) combo
with the results you get from your PSI or DPT.

Our results show, that if we take the system you have above, and add
another 32 MB of RAM ( cheaper than the PSI with 20 MB cache ),
and for ISC 3.0, set NBUF to 16000 and NHBUF to 16384, we will get 
even better performance, keeping the 174(x).

-- 
Ed Whittemore   uunet!maxed!ed   ed@maxed.amg.com
American Micro Group, Inc.   201-944-3293
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: david@infopro.com (Dragon [David Fiedler])
Subject: Re: I want *YOUR* SCSI tape backup command!! (making it stream)
Organization: InfoPro Systems: Writers, Consultants, and Dragons
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 21:08:48 GMT

gwr@mc.com (Gordon W. Ross) writes:

>Stephen M. Youndt <steve@hacker.uucp> asks:
>>	I'm sure this is a FAQ, but I didn't pay attention because I
>>didn't have a SCSI tape drive until yesterday.  If somebody out there
>>has a backup command (tar, cpio, etc, I don't care) that makes their
>>SCSI tape drive go fast, I'd love to see it. If you like, you can

>There is a jumper on the Wangtek which makes it default to
>"buffered mode" operation.  This will make it stream on writes.
>Order the manual from Wangtek to learn about this jumper.

I didn't see the original post, but with SCO Unix 3.2.4.1 and a 386/33,
the only way I could get my Wangtek (the 150/250 MB one) to stream was to
run Bru in double-buffering mode (and I *did* set the jumper on the drive). 
And this is with a DPT controller with 4 MB of caching.
-- 
David Fiedler    UUCP:{netcomsv,utoday}!infopro!david               AIR: N3717R
"The future is tekon."   Internet: david@infopro.com or david@utoday.com 
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:57:45 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <1992Oct07.202509.4827@digibd.com>
	rhealey@dellr4.digibd.com (Rob Healey) writes:

>In article <BvKHx7.7EG@gator.rn.com>, larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>|> that would (to me) be a nightmare -- 60 floppies.  Right now Dell
>|> comes on 3 floppies (boot, kernel and unlimited users upgrade) and
>|> one 250 meg tape (which runs just fine in a 150 meg drive).

>|> But if one doesn't have a tape, CD or DAT, floppies is the only way.

>	If one doesn't have a backup tape one shouldn't be using UNIX
>	PERIOD... Veeeeeeeeeery foolish thing this "floppy only" UNIX
>	idea, then again, after the first 200M+ floppy restore people will
>	usually wise up and by a tape unit so I 'spoze it doesn't
>	really matter anyways...

The question is not one of whether or not to have a tape backup, it's of
all the different media used for backups.

Not every format of media is best for all applications. Users may choose
from Exabytes, Bernoullis, WORM, Optical Disks, little CMS mini-QICs, DATs,
QICs, even VHS tape recorders, for their backup strategies. It's
impossible for a UNIX vendor to ship their stuff on every possible
media. The only guaranteed media that all systems support, is the floppy
disk.

While most vendors have a version available on QICs (and Dell ships on a
DAT too), it's good to know that one can choose a backup strategy using
any one of a number of available media, without requiring the
UNIX vendor to ship a distribution on that media. As long as floppies
are available, all of the technologies are available.

Besides, the floppies are used once -- for first time installation. If
the backup strategy is sound, then subsequent restores will require a
minimum of floppies, just enough to boot and install the backup media
driver.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
From: hossein@ces.cwru.edu (HOSSEIN)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Any experience with Sony 4mm DAT drives?
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:40:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: ida.ces.cwru.edu
Keywords: DAT tape 4mm SCO unix

Hi,
	We have a Gateway 486/33 running under SCO unix V386 R3.2.  The system
has an Adaptec 1542 SCSI HA and we want to add a SCSI tape drive to it.  The
price/capacity for a Sony 4mm DAT looks reasonable.  It is $1049 for an external
tape drive with 1.3GB capacity.  I was wondering if anybody out there has had 
experience with these tape drives.

- Are the 4mm tapes as reliable as QIC tapes?
- Won't we have problems in connecting the external tape drive through the 
  external SCSI port?
- What about the compatibility of the CAM or ASPI driver methods?

I'll appreciate any response.

Thanks a lot,
Seyed.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Intel/ISC 4.0.3: can you 'pack' a filesystem?
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:52:30 GMT

davis@csrg2.ee.iastate.edu (Jim Davis) writes:

>I'm running Intel/ISC 4.0.3 UNIX with ONE 300Mb ufs file system. 
>Is there a way to pack a file system to make files contiguous, etc, 

How about backing it up to tape, re-making the filesystem, followed
by a restore of the tape?



-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: Wangtek or Archive?? (and 60 MB tapes)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 13:00:39 GMT

> olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson) writes:
>> Archive has told us (me personally) that they qualified the 6250
>> tapes on all of their 2150S (qic150 SCSI drives), and are aware of
>> no such problems.  This rumor/story has floated around the net, but
>> I've never heard a drive vendor confirm it.

cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
> If 3M thought it was enough of a problem to put a written warning on
> each and every tape that they sell, I would say that the problem is much
> more than a "rumor".

I seem to recall that it was also 3M who warned against using 60 MB tapes
in a 150 MB or 250 MB drive.  Are they being overly cautious?  Do they just
want to avoid liability lawsuits?  Or do they want to sell more tapes?  :)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: dbullis@cognos.com (Dave Bullis)
Subject: Re: Bad CACHE Memory
Organization: Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:27:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.194916.412@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>I've had problems recently with my 486/33 running UNIX SVR3 (esix 3.2-d)
>doing funny things, corrupted kernel, corrupted files, hanging processes,
>etc.  Today on a reboot after such a corruption, the bios siad "CACHE
>MEMORY BAD, DO NOT ENABLE CACHE."   So I disabled the CACHE.
>
>It is an Opti 486-33WB, AMI 05/09/92 BIOS, 16mb 70ns ram.  There is 
>64kb of external cache. (expandable to 512kb).
>
>How can I identify which of the cache chips is bad?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>-- 
>bill@unixland.natick.ma.us                      ESIX Mailing List Moderator
>Public Access UNIX/USENET/E-MAIL!  UUCP Accounts Available!  (508) 655-3848
>5 lines  -  Located in Natick, MA   USA    Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.

I had similiar problems with a DTK PEM2500 (386 25Mhz) board.  Problems
started months ago and got really bad recently.  Started with bit 24 being
set in the size field of some inodes (makes for big files!).  Then
binaries aborting for no reason, (but when I copied them they ran ok).
Finally it fails to boot (even DOS).
If I let it cool off, and then boot it will work ok for a few minutes.
(This suggests heat problems)
Ran qaplus under DOS and it reported memory problems (lower 12 bits of address
alwasys the same).

I got a a can of Super Cold and started blasting chips until the the
problem went away.  It looks like one of 3 cache chips (I haven't
narrowed it down yet).
Actually I thought it was a PAL chip located beside the cache ram
that was bad.  But being more carefull about which chip I was blasting
showed the cache ram as bad.

I added a fan blowing onto the cache ram it works ok if I keep the cover off
and move the hard drive out of the way.  I'm now looking around to replace
a few cache chips which should fix the problem.  Unfortunately, nobody
stocks these 'old' cache ram chips so I'll have to find someone to order
them.

Good luck.
-- 
Dave Bullis        Cognos, Inc     VOICE: (613) 738-1440 FAX: (613) 738-0002
3755 Riverside Dr. P.O. Box 9707    WORK: dbullis@cognos.com
Ottawa, Ontario,   CANADA  K1G 3Z4  HOME: dave@sillub.ocunix.on.ca
"I didn't know the terminals were haunted.  The salesman didn't tell us."
From: marwood@ncs.dnd.ca (Gordon Marwood)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Interactive Unix Upgrades
Keywords: Interactive, VP/ix
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:47:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: netfs.1992Oct7.164754.24110
Organization: DND, Ottawa, CANADA


Does anyone have any information on what the upgrades to Interactive
Unix SysV3.2 provide, other than bug fixes.  I am considering upgrade
of the operating system from rel. 3.0 to 3.01 and VP/ix from rel. 1.2.0
to 1.2.1.

Thank you
Gordon Marwood
Internet: marwood@ncs.dnd.ca
From: ravi@freeside.com (Ravi Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Consensys (questions) vs ODT vs Solaris vs Univel vs ....
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 08:28:36 CDT
Reply-To: ravi@usv.com
Distribution: world
Organization: Rivendell BBS / Hou, TX. / +1 713 941 2236

Hi there,
   I am currently looking at Consensys. Please mail me your good/bad
experiences with them.

   Right now I have a SCO environment. However, I need to move to
a s5r4 based OS, due to the limitation of 256 minor devices per major
the older versions. At a recent computer expo (at Houston) I heard that the
Sys 5 R4.2 version of Consensys is shipping in a couple of weeks time.
Also, it is priced at $1500 for a set equivalent to ODT runtime + Dev.
Except that Merge is not present in this version, everything else is here.
So, should I go ahead with replacing getting ODT (for newer) with getting
these? Or should I wait for Solaris or Univel's UnixWare (how long will
all these really take to be stabilized?). Also, how would you stack up
Consensys with Dell, Esix, and all the other SVR4s compared (is there any
difference other than the price?).

Another question I had was if NFS on a SVR4.2 would work with ODT 2.0 NFS?
File locking, etc. ? How about yellow pages/NIS whatever they call it now?
Final critical need... I was stymied by SCO not letting you have more
than 8 characters in your username. I have an application that *needs*
10 characters. Hope  Consensys (I hate typing the long OS name) has it.

BTW, when to a talk at this expo by Sun(Soft?) President. Don't remember
his name. Anyway, according to him, wait for Solaris (on intel), as it's
going to be the #1 OS.

That's all for now. Would appreciate if you could email me your replies
(to ravi@usv.com).

Thanks,
--Ravi.

--
ravi@freeside.com (Ravi Ramachandran)
Rivendell BBS -*- Houston, TX -*- +1(713)941-2236

--
ravi@freeside.com (Ravi Ramachandran)
Rivendell BBS -*- Houston, TX -*- +1(713)941-2236
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386