HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: [23]@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Multiple Users for Windows/NT
Organization: Texaco
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:41:53 GMT

In article <4879@tivoli.UUCP>, bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter) writes:
|> Alistair Banks writes:
|> 
|> |> Both the microkernel and the Win32 subsystem know how to handle multile
|> |> users. The piece that won't is the server that managers the screen, being
|> |> a part of the Win32 subsystem. So you can have multiple background
|> |> tasks with different security IDs, but only one security ID for
|> |> interactive processes -- Alistair
|> 
|> Frankly, I don't know what you are getting at.  I'm sitting here at my
|> Sparcstation (running SunOs of course) and I can "graphically" create new
|> windows and run programs from my window manager - BUT ONLY AS THE USER ID
|> I have logged in as.  So Unix/X window managers don't provide such a facility
|> either.  The special "trick" to run a "graphical" program as
|> another user is to create a shell/command window, su, and then crank up
|> the "windowing" program from there.
Not totally true...
You can set up your Motif or OL menus do do all of that automatically.  I 
routinely login as several users at once under the same session ( to test 
user access priviliges, etc ) with just the click of a mouse button. Unix/X
_does_ provide that flexibility.

|> So are you suggesting that someone can't run a "shell" in a window (not
|> a dos shell) as an app, spawn another shell within that window with a
|> different user id (su or login equivalent), and then run other
|> "interactive" programs from that shell with that user id?  Does the Win32
|> window "server" not allow this other "interactive" process to create
|> new windows because of a different security ID (no xhost-like mechanism)?

Good question, anyone care to comment?  Does this mean that I could run an
X program in the background and have it display on some other machine?
Could several people run several X programs in the background and have them
all display on different terminals?

-- 
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.dos-under-unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
From: phil@bts.com (Phil Eschallier)
Subject: function keys under vpix
Organization: Bux Technical Services -- Doylestown, PA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:55:05 GMT


i am using isc 3.0 and their vpix package ... when i set at the
console (386 pc/at) and run vpix, everything does as if i were
directly running ms-dos.  but if i try to run vpix from an ascii
terminal (a vt100 or ansi compatable), i can't run any dos
applications that require function keys (function keys are not
recognized).  the terminfo entries are correct ... i can use the
function keys under curses based unix applications!!

is there any way i run my dos based applications on ascii terminals --
particularly my peachtree accounting software ??  function keys are an
integral part of the user interface.

-- 
Phil Eschallier                                 Bux Technical Services
 Inet: phil@bts.com                             P.O. Box 110
 UUCP: ...!{dsinc|gvls1|widener}!jabber!phil    Doylestown, PA  18901
                                                +1 215 348 9721
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:100 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1405 comp.unix.questions:11908
From: bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Multiple Users for Windows/NT
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:26:41 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Organization: TIVOLI Systems

Alistair Banks writes:

|> Both the microkernel and the Win32 subsystem know how to handle multile
|> users. The piece that won't is the server that managers the screen, being
|> a part of the Win32 subsystem. So you can have multiple background
|> tasks with different security IDs, but only one security ID for
|> interactive processes -- Alistair

Frankly, I don't know what you are getting at.  I'm sitting here at my
Sparcstation (running SunOs of course) and I can "graphically" create new
windows and run programs from my window manager - BUT ONLY AS THE USER ID
I have logged in as.  So Unix/X window managers don't provide such a facility
either.  The special "trick" to run a "graphical" program as
another user is to create a shell/command window, su, and then crank up
the "windowing" program from there.

So are you suggesting that someone can't run a "shell" in a window (not
a dos shell) as an app, spawn another shell within that window with a
different user id (su or login equivalent), and then run other
"interactive" programs from that shell with that user id?  Does the Win32
window "server" not allow this other "interactive" process to create
new windows because of a different security ID (no xhost-like mechanism)?

Brian Vetter
bjv@tivoli.com
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:92 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1374 comp.unix.questions:11867
From: jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:35:40 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Organization: Ahlstrom Filtration - Chattanooga,TN

In article <1992Oct04.025800.1694@ksmith.uucp>, keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
> I knew it all along.  I'm f*cking nuts. (Not in my right mind).  I kinda
> like the SPEED and simplicity of the text based interface.  In fact even
> though I can use X or even windows at work I don't.  I just don't ever
> SEE any business apps running 90% graphics.  Hey,  Don't get me wrong. 
> If you are doing CAD or Desktop Publishing you NEED those capabilities. 
> But the average user on my Systems can't even follow the concept of an
> SCO multiscreen.  Full use of windows would just blow them away, like as
> in forget it.

I used to think this also.  A few months ago we installed 3
X-terminals for non-technical users (they are, however, educated
people, so we're not talking illiterates here) and they have really
caught on, so I would not discount the advantages of a window based
system.

However, I will still side with Keith that support for character based
applications is absolutely necessary.  Even on the X-terminals, most
of the programs being used are running in 'xterm' windows in character
mode.  This is for two reasons: 1) most of the programs are ones we
wrote, so there's no time or money to go back and change them all to
direct X apps, and 2) the programs we actually bought (e.g. WP, 1-2-3,
etc) are just now coming out with X-based versions on our platforms
and the upgrades aren't going to be free, so it will be a while before
we can affordt o upgrade.

So, while I would not give up my Xwindows work environment for
anything, I still argue for the preservation of character interfaces,
since you can always integrate character into graphical, whereas the
reverse is quite tedious.
------------- 
James B. O'Connor                                     jim@tiamat.fsc.com
Information Technology Manager                        voice 615/821-4022 x651
Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.                             fax   615/821-0616
=========
	"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President,
	 should, on no account, be allowed to do the job."
	 Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: hahn@ipk.fhg.de (Uwe Hahn)
Subject: Re: PC+DOS Emulator Source Code for UNIX
Organization: IPK Berlin, Inst. fuer Produktionsanlagen- und Konstruktionstechnik der FHG
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:33:29 GMT

bsb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Brett Baumberger) writes:

>Hi,

>I support SoftPC, a dos emulator for unix boxes.  It runs dos 5.0.  It has

[...]

>Brett Baumberger
>SoftPC Support

Is it possible to get this fine package on any ftp-server in germany and is it
portable to 386bsd Unix ?

Uwe
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uwe Hahn                                |  email: Uwe.Hahn@ipk.fhg.dbp.de
IPK Berlin              		|  phone: +49 030/39006-166
Pascalstr. 8-9, 1000 Berlin 10, Germany |
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: briank@Kimbro.SeaSlug.ORG (D. Brian Kimmel)
Subject: VPix problems
Organization: D. Briank Kimmel - home system
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:35:44 GMT


I have SCO 3.2.2 unix dev system that I bought used.  The hard drive
died and I am reinstalling the original distribution disks on the
new drive.

The os and dev system went on ok and work correctly,  Vpix loaded
but does not work properly.  When I run vpix, the screen blanks and
nothing happens.  I can get the vpix menu (alt shift sysreq) and quit.

The original owner thinks there was a configure parameter changed but
no longer remembers which one.  I tried several of them that seemed
as though they would work but no luck.

Does anyone know how to get vpix (1.2 by the way) working with 3.2.2
unix?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Brian
-- 
D. Brian Kimmel - home system	Email: briank@kimbro.SeaSlug.ORG
Seattle,  WA        (206) 937-5742      Modem: (206) 937-6779
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey)
Subject: Re: Porting under UNIX (Was: Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
X-Disclaimer: These opinions are mine: others available on request.
Reply-To: Kevin Broadey <kbroadey@edscom.demon.co.uk>
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
	<1992Oct5.101145.18218@cam-orl.co.uk> <id.POUT.QT6@ferranti.com>
	<KETIL.92Oct6220525@ugle.ii.uib.no>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:25:15 GMT

>>>>> In article <KETIL.92Oct6220525@ugle.ii.uib.no>, "Ketil" ==
>>>>> ketil@ugle.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) writes:

Ketil> Sure, UNIX versions varies, but remember that if Unix had been
Ketil> produced by *one* vendor from the start, it wouldn't have become
Ketil> what it is today.

Is that a glowing endorsement or a damning criticism?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:15:34 GMT

In article <KETIL.92Oct6215118@ugle.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
> The funny thing, IMHO, is that everybody owning a PC is running
> windows.  In 640x400 mode.  GIving you enough space for exactly one
> window, just like a standard 80x25 text terminal.

Well, I run in 640x200* at home, and it's *still* useful. I generally keep
a bunch of windows minimized, with maybe 4 lines of text visible, and zoom up
the one I'm looking at.

It's WAY better than any character terminal, and the PC to do it on costs
$300 in the latest version. A composite mono monitor (remember, we're talking
character terminals here) is another $100 or so.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: BASIC to C
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:12:31 CDT


Does anyone know of a BASIC to C converter?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
From: cclark@trentu.ca (J. Chris Clark)
Subject: Re: Reading DOS command line options
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.191855.22469@devildog.att.com>, wkamm@acpy01.att.com (William Kamm (CXNIXPT1)) writes...

>Does anyone have a DOS equivalent to the UNIX getopt() function?  This 
>function will return, one at a time, the options and any associated
>arguments entered on the command line when the program was invoked.
> 
>I need this as I am taking a UNIX application and porting it to run
>under DOS also.  I am using Microsoft C 7.0.
> 
>Any other alternatives would be appreciated.

Well, if I understand the question properly, can't you use the argc and
argv parameters to main()?  In case you don't know about them, the syntax
for using them is:

<return_type> main(int argc, char *argv[])

That is, argc holds the number of items on the command line and
argv is an array of points to the character arrays (strings) which are
the command line optinos.  Note that argv[0] points to the .EXE name and
this is included in the count of argc.
I've used this before to determin if the user entered a "?" on the
command line (representing that they only wanted help, not to run).

It's been a while so I'm not 100% sure of the syntax, but I'm pretty
sure it should work.  (This is under Borland C, although I'm assuming
that it's ANSI C compatible.)

Hope this helps (and that it's what you were asking about.)

Chris C.

flames > /dev/nul
:}
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: DOS I/O program under UNIX
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bvrn4M.7up@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
|bsb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Brett Baumberger) writes:
|
|>Serial Communication through DOS emulators is shaky, but possible.  Don't
|>attempt baud rates over 9600.
|
|We've been able to run Qmodem at 38400 with USR HST modems under
|VPix and ISC 3.2 using Digiboards..  I haven't tried this with
|SVR4 -- since I no longer have the need to run DOS under UNIX.

Hey, we've managed to get a serial I/O port attached to a *pty*!
[So we could redirect the DOS serial I/O over a network connection -
yeah, I know, strange, but the program we needed to redirect only knows
serial ports, and is written is *assembly* for PC hardware, so porting
it was out of the question].

[Of course we had to write a streams module to give the pty ports the
modem control ioctl's, since they don't normally grok them].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:131 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:499 comp.os.msdos.programmer:9933
From: zaxin@starbird.WPI.EDU (Benjamin Christophe Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Reading DOS command line options
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:22:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: starbird.wpi.edu
Originator: zaxin@starbird.WPI.EDU


>Does anyone have a DOS equivalent to the UNIX getopt() function?  This 
>function will return, one at a time, the options and any associated
>arguments entered on the command line when the program was invoked.


the best/easiest way to get the command line options in C is to make use of the
argc and argv variables that are passed to the main procedure.

i.e.

void main(int argc, char *argv[])

argc is a count of the # of arguments specified on the command line...

delete /p *.*       --->    argc = 3

argv is a pointer to a list of character strings.... (try conceptualizing that
three times fast)

argv contains the actual characters  delete\0/p\0*.*\0\0
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:89 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1367 comp.unix.questions:11863
From: keithb@hemel.bull.co.uk (Keith Bedford)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Porting under UNIX (Was: Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:37:35 GMT
Organization: Bull HN UK

ketil@ugle.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) writes:


>Btw, how would you go about without ifdefs?  Say you want to port NT
>code (or whatever) to a different architecture.  Now:  how will you
>cope with little- or bigendianness, integer size (32bit, 64bit, or
>whatever), and probably several other HARDware dependencies.  And we
>haven't even touched multiprocessing systems (which seems to be the
>future) yet.

The best way (IMHO) is to extract all portability issues into header files
which define macros to achieve the desired aim. This produces clean
readable source files. The header files can either use #ifdef to select
between platforms or different header files can be produced for each
platform (easier to read and create, harder to maintain).


>--
> = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
==============================================================================
  Keith Bedford				keith.bedford@uk03.bull.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
From: wkamm@acpy01.att.com (William Kamm (CXNIXPT1))
Subject: Reading DOS command line options
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:18:55 GMT


Does anyone have a DOS equivalent to the UNIX getopt() function?  This 
function will return, one at a time, the options and any associated
arguments entered on the command line when the program was invoked.

I need this as I am taking a UNIX application and porting it to run
under DOS also.  I am using Microsoft C 7.0.

Any other alternatives would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bill Kamm

att!devildog!acpy01!wkamm
wkamm@acpy01.att.com
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: NeXTPC
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:56:46 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Oct2.164007.8162@tamsun.tamu.edu> curtis@accnxt1.tamu.edu (Curtis Johnson) writes:

	[Stuff about Nextstep]


Does Nextstep have a SysVR4 compatible application interface like that other
Mach-based system OSF/1? In particular does it fully support mmap(), etc.

Thanks in Advance,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:93 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1375 comp.unix.questions:11870
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Porting under UNIX (Was: Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:41:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <KETIL.92Oct6220525@ugle.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>Well, maybe it's difficult to write portable code under Unix, I
>haven't really tried, but I have ported (compiled) quite a few
>applications to our systems.  And I find that there usually is very
>little difficulty involved.
>
>Btw, how would you go about without ifdefs?  Say you want to port NT
>code (or whatever) to a different architecture.  Now:  how will you
>cope with little- or bigendianness, integer size (32bit, 64bit, or
>whatever), and probably several other HARDware dependencies.  And we
>haven't even touched multiprocessing systems (which seems to be the
>future) yet.

It seems to me that the biggest advantage of #ifdef is that the unused code
does not get compiled into the object file, preventing huge sizes.  Most of
the functionality of #ifdef could be duplicated by selective sed'ing of header
files in the configuration, since a majority of the changes are either a)
function name/parameter differences or b) endian/size differences, and those
can usually be *compiled* w/o error on any machine, whether or not they can
*run* correctly.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: bsb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Brett Baumberger)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:56:16 GMT
Subject: Re: PC+DOS Emulator Source Code for UNIX
Organization: the HP Response Center, Atlanta
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix

Hi,

I support SoftPC, a dos emulator for unix boxes.  It runs dos 5.0.  It has
a vga display.  It runs windows 3.1.  It has a windows display driver which
allows the user to size the windows windows as large as the user wants.
It runs in xwindows.  If your DOS application is text only, it can run on
a dumb terminal.  It can share files with the unix system..

It is a *nightmare* to support.  It seems it's hard to tell if the problem
is unix, xwindows, dos, softpc, xwindows, nfs, user error or sunspot
activity.

Brett Baumberger
SoftPC Support

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: peet@locus.com (J. David Peet)
Subject: Re: MS-Windows 3.1 under vpix (SCO 3.2.4)
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:37:10 GMT

In article <81352.1.718965639@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de> 81352@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de (Lars Detmers) writes:
>Hey Freaks,
>is there a possibility to run MS-Windows 3.x under SCO UNIX 3.2.4.
>
>Lars 

Currently MS-Windows 3.0 runs in real mode with Merge (and VPIX).

A new version of Merge that is in the works will run MS-Windows 3.1
in standard mode.  VPIX will not. Ever.  Note: This new Merge version
requires a new kernel for this new capability, so an upgrade to
your UNIX version must be done first.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
David Peet     Internet: peet@locus.com   UUCP:...!uunet!lcc!peet  
               Fax:(310)670-2980  Voice:(310)670-6500
Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles
9800 La Cienega Blvd. Inglewood, CA 90301
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Normally my statements are my own, and not do not
necessarily reflect those of Locus, but maybe this time they do,
but then again, maybe not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: alistair@microsoft.com (Alistair Banks)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 07 Oct 92 21:44:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

May I request that this thread is taken over to .advocacy groups. It
has degenerated irretrievably from an questions about plans into a
debate about the realtive merits of UI techniques - this is way off
the subject matter of Win32 API programming.

-- Alistair
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: DOS I/O program under UNIX
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:21:57 GMT

bsb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Brett Baumberger) writes:

>Serial Communication through DOS emulators is shaky, but possible.  Don't
>attempt baud rates over 9600.

We've been able to run Qmodem at 38400 with USR HST modems under
VPix and ISC 3.2 using Digiboards..  I haven't tried this with
SVR4 -- since I no longer have the need to run DOS under UNIX.


-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry