HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:16:25 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:

>Aaaargh!  Not this damned argument again!  NT will, supposedly, implement
>a *strict* subset of UNIX --- POSIX.

Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
way to attract software development under the false promise of source
compatibility with Unix.  Just like the false promises of running DOS
software.

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de (Christoph H. Hochstaetter)
Subject: Multiple Users for Windows/NT
Organization: Philipps-University Marburg
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:47:28 GMT

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

I am still having problems to understand that. What's the difference
between background processes and interactive processes? As far as I
understand you, I can write a job that e.g. multiplies millions of
integer numbers for a couple of days. I can log off and the job still
keeps running and no one else can do anything with e.g. kill the job.
But if I am doing the same with a 32-bit Excel, I can not logoff
without quitting Excel?

Ok, Windows/NT is not UNIX, but where is the difficulty just giving
each process-id a userid, regardless, if it is interactive or not.
And what is the criteria for job/process being interactive or not?

Christoph
-- 
Internet: ch@sg1502.chemie.uni-marburg.de
BITNET: HAMPE2@DMRHRZ11
Fido: 2:243/660
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:21:16 GMT

In article <jbone.717717022@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>Aaaargh!  Not this damned argument again!  NT will, supposedly, implement
>a *strict* subset of UNIX --- POSIX.  NT implements *all* APIs at a server
>level.  

*sigh*

Someone who doesn't think.  The POSIX API for NT is not going to be the only
API that exists.  There will be the Windows API, which is neither a strict
superset nor strict subset of neither POSIX nor UNIX; there will also almost
certainly be a VMS API, at least on the Alpha, and VMS is also neither a
strict superset nor a strict subset of neither POSIX, UNIX, nor Windows.

In other words, the underlying capabilities of NT will provide for mappings
to the various needs of at least those systems, but will, per necessity,
also provide more (although not necessarily a *lot* more).  Even if a
capability required by one of the API's requires the interface code to jump
through hoops, if the base ability is not in the base system, it cannot
really be done.  (Well, it *can*, but I doubt uSoft will do that, given that
they do know at least two, and probably more, of the systems they want to be
compatible with from both a source and binary point of view.)

NT's underlying system will look a lot like either Mach or a curious version
of VMS.


-- 
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.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:28:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.134239.13608@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
> You are the first person I have heard say so. MS folk have repeatedly promised
> full POSIX compatibilty.

Full POSIX.1, maybe. But that's inadequate. Or do they plan to provide .1a,
.2, and .2a as well?

> BTW, you can't be "source compatible" with Unix, because there is really no
> single thing that is "Unix".

Sure there is. There are lots of supersets, but the core of about 35 system
calls and standard files is remarkably consistent.

> Without using a standard layer such as POSIX it
> is very difficult to write sophisticated code that will run on different
> versions of Unix. Take a look at the source to xterm! :-)

X isn't UNIX.
-- 
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.dos-under-unix
From: ketil@ugle.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
	<1992Oct5.035259.3640@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:51:18

In article <1992Oct5.035259.3640@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:

   >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.

   I'm a programmer, so the actual graphics capabilities of X are incidental
   to me.  However -- the real estate represented by a workstation-sized
   screen is pure gold, IMHO.

I agree!  But I hardly ever use menus, or file managers or any of
those things.  Love Xtank, though :-)

   Being able to open up an emacs window the hight of the screen and see 80 or
   100 lines of code at once is simply indespensible.  And being able to have
   a shell window open along side my editor window means I don't have to mess
   around with ^Z/fg to switch back and forth; in fact, I can see my output
   and the code that generated it at the same time.

Now imagine what windows means to a PC user who never even had the ^Z
oportunity, and ask yourself why he's happy!

   For a terminal screen sized GUI environment, this is mitigated quite a bit,
   but the ability to exploit a multitasking environment windows gives you
   is still just as important.

   A bit-mapped oriented display also gives you the ability to do desktop
   publishing stuff (something that's probably more important to someone
   concerned with "buisiness apps").

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.

Also for some reason unbeknownst to me, Suns are *awfully* slow when
*not* running X (i.e. just logging in without starting X, using the
console  as a character terminal)

hmmm
--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: hans@castlerock.East.Sun.COM (Hans Hrasna)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: MS-DOS under SunOS 4.1.x
Date: 29 Sep 1992 18:46:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: hans@castlerock.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: castlerock.east.sun.com
Keywords: MS-DOS, SUN, UNIX


	I'm interested in hearing about the software people are using to run MS-DOS
under SunOS... We have SunPC at work but I am looking for alternatives that I could
run at home on a Sun 3 machine, I can't really afford SunPC.


              /\
             \\ \   	Hans R. Hrasna
            \ \\ /  	Sun Microsystems
           / \/ / / 	Northeast Solutions Ctr.
          / /   \//\ 	1 River Road
          \//\   / / 	Andover, MA  01810
           / / /\ /  	
            / \\ \	Hans.Hrasna@east.Sun.com
             \ \\     
              \/        





Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: s310@brems.ii.uib.no (Chris Tveit)
Subject: News by PC
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:28:12 GMT


Is there anyway I can read News on my PC (ms-dos/windows) by using 
a modem to a Unix-network?

Is there any software avail. to make this work ? (PD/ShareW)?


Chris.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:23:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Followup-To: alt.flame

In article ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
| Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
| way to attract software development under the false promise of source
| compatibility with Unix.  

Only people who can't read have trouble with this.  The system
is POSIX.1 compliant and we gaurantee compatibility with POSIX.1.
Unix is never mentioned.

|Just like the false promises of running DOS software.

The PDC release works just fine for me.  I use it to access Compuserve.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:59:56 GMT

I said: 2400 baud sisn't afst enough for anything more than graphics.

In article <1992Oct04.223925.885@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
> I disagree.  Remote Login to a lan (especially at 9600 baud, but
> even 2400 is ok) is sufficient to run the type of remote desktop
> that Windows NT imagines.  That is, 100% of the GUI runs locally
> while opening pipes or RPC's to other

Oh, sure, if you want to imagine stuff I'll imagine I'm running MGR or
8 1/2 on my Blit. That should work fine at 2400 baud. If you're writing
a whole bunch of new applications from scratch anyway, why not use a
better API than Windows?

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to post a reasonable review
of the NT kernel design, API, and so on that isn't in bogocode. You know,
something I can view and print without buying a PC to run Windows 3.1 on.

Something like the Plan 9 papers would be fine...
-- 
Peter da Silva                                          `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                               'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180            "Dat is mijn gezel, en niet bedoeld als een fooi."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:40:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.051537.19390@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>Since nobody in their right mind wants computer access without
>a full GUI interface, and they are so bloody cheap anyway, the 
>main system only supports one person on the keyboard.  
>

I knew it.  I'm *not* in my right mind :-)

Seriously: GUI is too slow (486/33 here).  I repeat: it's too slow!

Secondly, a lot of the mouse clicking crapola drives me nuts.  Dragging
and clicking through 7 layers of menus is not fun.

So, when the hardware gets powerful enough, yeah, I like font choices
and lots of color and all that. But it ain't there yet.

And I like a mouse for marking text in spreadsheets or word processing. 
Other than that, I want a command line and lots of arcane switches, thank you!

		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle

Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:60 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1288 comp.unix.questions:11710
From: rdb@oasis.icl.co.uk (Roger Binns)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:33:31 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Sean Eric Fagan (sef@kithrup.COM) wrote:
: The main obstacle in making NT allowing multiple users logging in
: simultaneously is that there is no terminal interface -- it's all windowing.
: But that's okay, so is X, and people use X just fine.
: 

Show me a X-window program that doesn't have quite a few printf's scattered around it.  X programs inherently use both, and I can practically guarantee that most X programs are aware that they are running in BOTH a windowing environment and a text based environment.

Roger
--
cs89rdb@brunel.ac.uk        Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middx, UK
"Is this stuff any good for ants? No, it kills them."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:15:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
| NT is a single user OS, so if any user is logged on,
| no one else can use the machine.  

This isn't true.  Probably a major reason why you state:

| ... but NT does not even come close to providing the power of Unix.  

Where we disagree.

The 'NT' part of Windows NT is fully capable of supporting a
full Unix V.4 + X11R4+ system with remote dialin ANSI terminals
or remoted X windows desktops.

The Windows 32 subsystem on top of Windows NT takes a somewhat 
different view of the world, since it grew up when CPU's where
cheap and ANSI terminals were archaic, versus the universe where
CPU's were expensive and ANSI terminals were cutting edge.

Windows 32 says:
Since nobody in their right mind wants computer access without
a full GUI interface, and they are so bloody cheap anyway, the 
main system only supports one person on the keyboard.  

On the other hand, you seperate users with like a full multiuser
system so you can have processes in the background in one security
context, the user at the keyboard in one context, and multiple
people simultaneously accessing the machine each with their own
security contexts and everyone is happily using the machine.

==========
You may not like that design decision but it isn't obviously
inferior, and all of this is irrelevent to the underlying
capability of NT.





-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se (Stefan Frick)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Strange reply from SunPC 3.0
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:53:00 GMT
Reply-To: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom, Printed Circuit Mfg.


I installed SunPC 3.0 last week and apart from the (normal?) struggle with
SunNet License it seemd to work ok. So I upgraded DOS to 5.0 and occasionally
when I quit the PC-window and return to OW (3.0), I get the reply:

User Defined signal 2

to any command I try to use in a shelltool, commandtool etc.

Anyone else seen this, and if so, what is it?
Restarting OLWM seems to cure it.

-Stefan

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stefan Frick                  | Email: etxstfr@helix.ericsson.se |
| Ericsson Telecom              | Phone: +46-11-241098             |
| Box 72                        | Fax:   +46-11-241207             |
| S-601 02 Norrkoping           |                                  |
| SWEDEN                                                           |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:37 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1217 comp.unix.questions:11569
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:42:39 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <1a807pINNiss@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
|> 
|> >Aaaargh!  Not this damned argument again!  NT will, supposedly, implement
|> >a *strict* subset of UNIX --- POSIX.
|> 
|> Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
|> way to attract software development under the false promise of source
|> compatibility with Unix.

You are the first person I have heard say so. MS folk have repeatedly promised
full POSIX compatibilty.

BTW, you can't be "source compatible" with Unix, because there is really no
single thing that is "Unix". Without using a standard layer such as POSIX it
is very difficult to write sophisticated code that will run on different
versions of Unix. Take a look at the source to xterm! :-)

And anyway, the promise of POSIX compatibility might attract interest in NT
but it won't attract software development for NT unless it exists in a
concrete form that can be used.

|> Just like the false promises of running DOS software.

Eh? Do you mean you have proof that NT won't run DOS software? Are they going
to remove the support for DOS software which is already there?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:11:47 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <1992Sep29.112116.627@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>NT's underlying system will look a lot like either Mach or a curious version
>of VMS.

Okay.  I think I understand what you've said.  Now, I have a question
for you: Which part of NT is it that doesn't know how to handle
multiple users?  Is it the actual NT kernel (in which case Unix
compatibility is more or less hopeless), or is it just the Win32 API?

-- 
Marc Unangst, N8VRH         | "There are two ways to solve this problem:
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | the hard way, and the easy way.  Let's start
                            | with the hard way."
                            |   - W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 01 Oct 92 22:32:01 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence) writes:
| And I like a mouse for marking text in spreadsheets or word processing. 
| Other than that, I want a command line and lots of arcane switches, thank you!

So do I, personally.  I purchased the Hamilton C Shell for Windows NT
(never heard of people shipping products on unrelease OS's before,
but hamilton isn't the only ISV shipping on Windows NT) for precisely
that reason.

However, for every one of you and I there are 1,000 of the other
folks.  So the Windows 32 religion in this regard isn't that strange
or unreasonable.

After all, you and I are going to be working on whatever those
1,000 people want because that is who we sell our services too!

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:50:22 GMT

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>
>Running NT under *nix is, well, not impossible, but very difficult, since
>the '386 (and later) do not virtualize, and NT, which requires protected
>mode, is an OS in and of itself, and, therefore, could not live with *nix.

>Running NT apps under *nix is more likely, but the answer to your *question*
>is, as far as I know, "no, nobody is doing a [sic] SCO-MERGE type product"
>to do that.  In the future, someone may; if NT requires dynamic linking
>(which it may), then doing it is somewhat easier, *provided* that *nix
>either starts out as a superset of NT, or can be made into a superset of NT.
>And right now, from what I know of NT, *nix is a subset, not a superset.
>


Aaaargh!  Not this damned argument again!  NT will, supposedly, implement
a *strict* subset of UNIX --- POSIX.  NT implements *all* APIs at a server
level.  It should be just as possible (and easier to do) to provide all
the NT services on top of a reasonable UNIX kernel as it will be to run
UNIX apps on NT... and personally, I'd opt for NT apps on UNIX over the
converse anyday.


jb


std. disclaimers...



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
        NT...  Just say N0T.   Skate UN*X!   Standard disclaimer. 
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
                                                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
From: guest@pegasus.com (Guest)
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 03:20:11 GMT

>| Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
>| way to attract software development under the false promise of source
>| compatibility with Unix.  
>
>Only people who can't read have trouble with this.  The system
>is POSIX.1 compliant and we gaurantee compatibility with POSIX.1.
>Unix is never mentioned.
>

No.

People who have experience with Microsloth have trouble with this too.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: phil@bts.com (Phil Eschallier)
Subject: DOS + F-Keys on ASCII terms
Organization: Bux Technical Services -- Doylestown, PA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:11:59 GMT


if this is an faq, i appologize!!

i am running isc 386/ix 3.0 (sys5.3.2) ... using their vpix package, i
can run my peachtree accounting software from the console with no
troubles.  but when i try to run this software on a vt100 compatable,
i can't use the function keys (which are essential).

is there a way for vpix to support function keys from an ascii
terminal??

-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: adh@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay)
Subject: Re: News by PC
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.172812.22249@alf.uib.no> s310@brems.ii.uib.no (Chris Tveit) writes:
"
"Is there anyway I can read News on my PC (ms-dos/windows) by using 
"a modem to a Unix-network?

yes.

"Is there any software avail. to make this work ? (PD/ShareW)?

waffle; currently 1.65 (i think).  it is share/free.

-- 
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Hay	|	I am not an expert,				       |
a_d_hay@att.com	|			 but I play one on the Internet!       |
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:76 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1331 comp.unix.questions:11779