HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jackn@caspianc.ism.isc.com (Jack Neman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: 9track 1/2" tape drives
Date: 31 Aug 1992 06:36:40 GMT
Organization: SunSoft Inc., Los Angeles, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: caspianc

In article <1992Aug30.233443.10923@tous.oau.org> rbt@tous.oau.org (Robert B. Tate) writes:
>Sorry, this went to sysv286 the first time. (I don't know how!).
>
>I picked up a reel-to-reel 1/2", 9 track tape deck and the interface to a
>IBM 8 bit bus slot at a auction this last weekend. Its a Wangco Mod 10,
>NRZI drive (HEAVY!). Its in very clean/good shape and came with PC-DOS
>software (which I haven't had time to try yet). It was packaged by
>Electrovalue Industrial, Inc.  sometime around 1985-90. Does anyone know
>anything about this Co. and/or this package? I would like to run it under
>ISC V3.2 r3.0 (and the new one when it comes out?).
>
>Along the same lines, I have a Cipher (F880?) 1/2", 9 track tape drive
>that I could use also. Is there an interface converter to let it run on a
>SCSI bus (Adaptec 1540B) or would it be better to try to find direct
>interface to it like the above drive?
>
>My stats:
>	ISC V3.2 r 3.0, 486/33 NoName, w/16meg mem, DPT ESDI controller
>	running 2 330Meg ESDI drives, Archive 499 (60meg QIC).
>
>Any pointers and/or info will be of great interest.
>

	Interactive release 3.0.1 now supports HP-Cipher or NCR-Cipher
	9 track tape drives for Adaptec 1540B. You also can get a patch
	for your release 3.0 to make the HP-Cipher or NCR-Cipher tape 
	drive for your Adaptec 1540B. I don't know if Cipher (F880?)
	is the same as NCR-Cipher or HP-Cipher or not.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: com ports 
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:02:23 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <1992Aug30.045819.6032@r-node.gts.org> marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
[tale of woe related to getting COM1 through COM4 all working at the
same time]

Unless you're really, really strapped for cash, don't bother with COM3
and COM4.  The trouble getting them to work, plus the fact that they
tie up all but one of your available 8-bit interrupt lines, just isn't
worth it.

Instead, get an AST 4-port or compatible card.  This type of card
gives you four ports on one interrupt, and is directly supported by
SAS and FAS.  The only disadvantage is that you can't use these ports
with MS-DOS applications; but then again, who runs DOS when they have
Unix available?  (Before you ask: My four-port card is a LongShine
LCS-8880.  Works fine with SAS 1.45, and should also work with FAS
2.09 and up.  I got it for $75 from an outfit in Texas called Altex
Electronics.  Their part number is also LCS-8880.  Phone number is
(800)531-5369.  Note that the card is shipped with Goldstar 16C450
UARTs; I didn't ask when I ordered if it was available without UARTs
(so you can supply your own), or whether they could put NS16550AFN
UARTs on it for an additional fee.)

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't make backups.  Real men never
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | accidentally delete files that they're going
                            | to need later.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: peter@zeus.dialix.oz.au (Peter Wemm)
Subject: SVR4 CD-ROM, VFS, SCSI (was: Re: Dell SVR4 (and Dell hardware))
Organization: Karam Pty. Ltd. Perth, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:43:40 GMT

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:

>In article <BtwFuD.5rB@gator.rn.com>, larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>| Since SCSI support was included in the base SVR4 package as
>| distributed from USL, it works quite well.  Several vendors
>| have enhanced the SCSI support beyond the USL sources -- but
>| to date, no one has added support for a CD-ROM filesystem.

>  One of the few real shortcomings of V.4 (and another reason why SCO
>runs on one of my machines at home). Maybe someone could port the stuff
>from some mature o/s like linux.

>  Okay, so yes I'm joking about mature, but not about porting the code.

There is a freely available ISO-9660 FS for CD-ROM for net-2 derived systems
that is just crying out to be ported to SVR4 (Whose VFS is based on the
SunOS/BSD VFS).

*BUT*  The VFS interfaces are completely undocumented in SVR4, and nobody
who does understand them is (so far) prepared to give out information, because
A) it would violate their source license, OR B) It cost them money to find
out, so they are certainly not going to freely distribute the stuff.

I really hope somebody will prove me wrong here (How about the vfsops/vnops
vector docs? hint, hint.. :-).

The biggest problem is that the VFS *is* *different* between SVR4's on
different architectures.  (EG: Motorola VFS code wont work on SVR4/386 VFS).
-- 
Peter Wemm : peter@zeus.dialix.oz.au     If it's broke, fix it (The MS-DOS way)
Work phone: +61-9-479-1855      If it aint broke, don't touch it (The Unix way)
Fax: +61-9-479-1134     If we can't fix it, it ain't broke (Maintainer's Motto)
  "Don't give me that intelligent life cr*p, find me something to blow up!"
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: X386 1.2E (X11R5) binaries for AT&T SVR3.2.3?
Date: 25 Aug 1992 18:46:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <TJWU.92Aug25125952@e40-008-11.mit.edu> tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu) writes:
>
>The FAQ for this group neglects to mention where these binaries can
>be found.  Please e-mail or post any anon. FTP sites or other places
>to find them.  Thanks.
>

I understand that the reason the binaries for SVR3.2 systems are not
available is the lack of support for R3.2 shared libs (the binaries
will be huge).  Are there any plans of changing this in
future releases of X386 1.2E?  How hard is it to create shared libs
under SVR3.2?  We, poor 3.2 holdouts, are the ones that need X386 1.2E
the most.  Maybe is about time to take the jump and switch to SVR4, but
I am still waiting to see what R4.2 products are going to look like.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: setting UUCP g protocol parameters under ESIX SVR4.0.3
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:24:46 GMT

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>Consensys should check the product out before shipping.  Their name
>goes on the product -- just like USL.  Dell has taken the time to check
>the product, and if something doesn't work -- they fix it.  Period
>The finger pointing is bull.  For ESIX to say, it's USL's fault and
>not fix something is wrong.

The bugs should be fixed at the BASE level, not at the VAR level.  
The VAR level is just that ... Addded Value.  Not Bug fixes.  

Each time a VAR has to fix a bug, they deviate further from the base
code, so "compatibility" and "uniformity" go down the toilet.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: ed@maxed.amg.com (Ed Whittemore)
Subject: Re: SMC Ethernet
Organization: American Micro Group, Ft. Lee  NJ
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:07:59 GMT

In article <14544@mindlink.bc.ca> Frank@mindlink.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) writes:
>> Ed Whittemore writes:
>> 
>> The new SMC versions of the WD80(x)3 cards work for 10baseT, but have
>> broken the AUI/BNC interface.
>
>I just installed a new SMC 8013 on a network of WD8013's connected via BNC
>connectors/coax - works great.  They've added TX and RX LEDs on the board as
>well - a nice touch which may come in handy for troubleshooting.
>
>Frank.
>--
>___________________________________________________________________
>Frank I. Reiter                 Internet: Frank@mindlink.bc.ca
>MIND LINK! Communications Corp. Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

The subject line in the previous said "Interactive Unix", and I
meant only for ISC 3.0 and drivers depending on WD 80(x)3
compatibility, is there a problem. ELITE boards work fine with
their own supplied drivers.
-- 
Ed Whittemore   uunet!maxed!ed   ed@maxed.amg.com
American Micro Group, Inc.   201-944-3293
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: rick@digibd.com (Rick Richardson)
Subject: Re: Avoiding the "8/16 Bit Problem"
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:58:13 GMT

chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:

>The specific question which needs to be asked is whether the SCSI card
>uses 8-bit or 16-bit BIOS ROM accesses, because that is the only memory
>mapped portion of these cards.  True, UNIX does not use the BIOS, but
>that doesn't matter.  The whole point is that if any card in the 128K
>memory segment wants to do memory transfers 16-bits at a time, then
>every card in that segment must use 16-bit tranfers.

>Yes, it's a stupid restriction.  Yes, it's typical IBM engineering.

The reason this happens is that at the time that a card has to tell
the bus it wants to do a 16 bit transfer, only enough address bits
are valid to select a 128K window.  Some slick HW types have found
workarounds to this problem, which include:

	- Have a SW enable/disable of 16 bit transfers.  Only put
	  the card into 16 bit mode during the duration of a
	  transfer to it, then return it to 8 bit mode.  Obviously,
	  you have to have interrupts off during all such transfers,
	  lest some other device driver wake up and try to access the
	  same 128k block in 8 bit mode.
	  
	- Put in some *really* fast address decode, and hope you have
	  enough time decode those low order address bits when they
	  finally become valid, but before it is too late to say "I
	  want a 16 bit transfer".  I think the success of this
	  approach depends greatly on the motherboard design.

Of course, any 16 bit board that doesn't have one of these workarounds
is enough to screw an 8 bit board to hell.

Like all good workarounds, neither of these is 100% reliable (otherwise,
we'd call them fixes, wouldn't we?).  The best solution* is to
segregate your memory mapped cards - C0000-DFFFF for one size,
E0000-E7FFF for the other.  Disable on board ROMs that aren't used.
So far, I haven't found a system that couldn't be partitioned
in this way (though I suspect that you'd be screwed if you
could find a 386 ISA with ROM Basic).

*Actually, had IBM enumerated all the design screw-ups in this
bus in a public marketing compaign at the time the uCHANNEL was
introduced, I suspect they could have moved the world to uCHANNEL,
even with the ridiculous licensing fees (read: closed design).

DISCLAIMER: These represent my personal feelings.  I am not a
hardware type, and could be wrong. Etc.

-- 
Rick Richardson		Email: rick@digibd.com	This space intentionally
Senior Staff Engineer	Fax:   (612) 943-0803	blank until 1996 elections.
DigiBoard, Inc.		Tel:   (612) 943-5383
Eden Prairie, MN	Radio: N0NMY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: paul@pphbau.atr.bso.nl (PPH Bauwens)
Subject: Re: Xman on Interactive 3.0
Organization: PPH Bauwens
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:09:37 GMT

Ed Whittemore (ed@maxed.amg.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Aug26.220320.15060@awds.imsd.contel.com> andy@awds.imsd.contel.com (Andy Moskoff) writes:
: >
: >Hi,
: >
: >Does anyone know how I can tell Xman to look for groff and NOT nroff on my
: >Interactive UNIX 3.0? Interactive, in there infinite wisdom doesn't offer
: >the Documentor's Workbench, so I've installed groff-1.05. However, Xman
: >doesn't look for groff, but nroff. Is there a way around this? I've already

Dear Ed,
 

Possible solutions that come to my mind are:

	1) Using a binary editor on Xman to patch 'nroff' to 'groff'

	2) Writing a shell script wrapper around 'groff' to emulate
	   the 'nroff' features used

	3) Writing a C program that acts as a wrapper (like the 'cc' driver)
           to emulate 'nroff' when Xman isn't able to exec shell scripts
	   (SVR4 can, but as far as I know SVR3 cannot)

	4) You'v got a UNIX system - use it  (see above) :-) :-)


Hope this helps some...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bauwens			E-mail:	 paul@pphbau.atr.bso.nl
Rietkerkweg 364				 paul@pphbau.hobby.nl
3066VL Rotterdam		Phone:   +31-10-4211858
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: rbt@tous.oau.org (Robert B. Tate)
Subject: 9track 1/2" tape drives
Followup-To: comp.unix.sysv386
Summary: Sorry, wrong orig. group!
Organization: Tate Enterprises
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:34:43 GMT

Sorry, this went to sysv286 the first time. (I don't know how!).

I picked up a reel-to-reel 1/2", 9 track tape deck and the interface to a
IBM 8 bit bus slot at a auction this last weekend. Its a Wangco Mod 10,
NRZI drive (HEAVY!). Its in very clean/good shape and came with PC-DOS
software (which I haven't had time to try yet). It was packaged by
Electrovalue Industrial, Inc.  sometime around 1985-90. Does anyone know
anything about this Co. and/or this package? I would like to run it under
ISC V3.2 r3.0 (and the new one when it comes out?).

Along the same lines, I have a Cipher (F880?) 1/2", 9 track tape drive
that I could use also. Is there an interface converter to let it run on a
SCSI bus (Adaptec 1540B) or would it be better to try to find direct
interface to it like the above drive?

My stats:
	ISC V3.2 r 3.0, 486/33 NoName, w/16meg mem, DPT ESDI controller
	running 2 330Meg ESDI drives, Archive 499 (60meg QIC).

Any pointers and/or info will be of great interest.


-- 
 rbt@tous.OAU.ORG  (Robert B. Tate)       | A little knowledge is a dangerous
 {ucf-cs,peora,tarpit}!tous!rbt           | thing. Any less can kill you.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: tkevans@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Tim Evans)
Subject: Dell SVR4 News:  Can't Post
Reply-To: tkevans@eplrx7.es.dupont.com
Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 14:33:31 GMT

I've installed Dell's default cnews/nn/nntp packages (SVR4, Issue 2.2)
on my home system.  It appears to be set up specifically for NNTP,
but my news connection is via UUCP.  What needs to be done to the
set up to get it to pass posted articles to uux?  (Incoming news 
via UUCP is working fine.)  Thanks.
-- 
Tim Evans                     |    E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
tkevans@eplrx7.es.dupont.com  |    Experimental Station
(302) 695-9353/7395           |    P.O. Box 80357
EVANSTK AT A1 AT ESVAX        |    Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0357
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: glenn@physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers)
Subject: Ieee_retrospective - where is it?
Followup-To: Poster
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:31:17 GMT

Hi,
	On ESIX 4.0.3 there is a manual entry for ieee_retrospective(3m). It
appears to be part of the BSD compatibility package but I can't find it in
any of the libraries. In any case I wrote my own (as part of my 386 libm.a
replacement) but I'm just curious to know if it was actually supplied.

Cheers,
	Glenn

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Glenn Geers                       | "So when it's over, 
                                  |  we're back to people.
Department of Theoretical Physics |  Just to prove that human touch
The University of Sydney          |  can have no equal."
Sydney NSW 2006 Australia         |  - Basia Trzetrzelewska, 'Prime Time TV'
                                  |
Phone: +61 2 692-3241 (voice)     |_________________________________________
       +61 2 660-2903 (fax)       |
                                  |
glenn@physics.su.oz.au            | #include <standard_disclaimer.h>
                                  |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: raymond@es.ele.tue.nl (Raymond Nijssen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: When to install FAS
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:51:30 GMT
	<1992Sep3.174116.22490@PacBell.COM>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
In-reply-to: j4jbail@srv.PacBell.COM's message of 3 Sep 92 17:41:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.174116.22490@PacBell.COM> j4jbail@srv.PacBell.COM (Jack Bailey) writes:

>   In article <RAYMOND.92Sep2150743@cobra.es.ele.tue.nl> raymond@es.ele.tue.nl (Raymond Nijssen) writes:

>>In addition, it reduces the system load because it's much more efficient than
>>all stock asy drivers I've seen so far.

>   I'm not so sure about this.  When I ran the stock drivers, the
>   load average on my box was very low.  With FAS-2.10 (as with the
>   previous versions), the load average rises to 0.5 minimum when
>   the first modem is in use.  With two modems in use, the load
>   average rises to about 0.7 or 0.8.  When both modems become idle,
>   the load average drops back to normal (below 0.1).

>   I'm running ISC 3.0 on a 486/50 with 16M of memory.

For serial ports without a FIFO UART, I experienced little difference between
stock asy drivers and FAS. Maybe ISC did a better job than their competitors,
I dunno, the last ISC package I played with is 2.0.1... 

However, FAS appears to be much better in exploiting FIFO UARTs than its
competitors: the asy drivers that come with ESIX 4.0.3 and Dell 4.0.2.0
failed to reduce the system load noticably when using 16550s.

-Raymond
--
| Raymond Nijssen         | Eindhoven University of Techology                 |
|                         | Department of Electrical Engineering              |
| raymond@es.ele.tue.nl   | Design Automation Section (ES),  Room EH 7.16     |
| phone: +31-40-473373    | P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands  |
| fax:   +31-40-464527    |       "Jan Timmer for President !"  (myself)      |
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: X386 1.2E (X11R5) binaries for AT&T SVR3.2.3?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:00:03 GMT


The FAQ for this group neglects to mention where these binaries can
be found.  Please e-mail or post any anon. FTP sites or other places
to find them.  Thanks.

  Thomas Wu
  Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: oklein@smallo.bo.open.de (Olaf Klein)
Subject: Re: Dell SVR4 (and Dell hardware)
Organization: smallo.bo.open.de Fido-SubNet-Gate : 2:245/5800.12
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:33:32 GMT

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:

>>A machine running SunOS will be much less likely to "hang" than the 
>>equivalent intel machine.  At least that has been my experience, but 
>Bull.  My Dell box runs and runs.  I remember running ISC (granted
>2.20 with their old 1.2 TCP release) and it hung.
>My machine doesn't hang.  Maybe yours does, but mine doesn't.

You should found the club of 'never dying machines' :-(.
I can't hear it anymore, how good and cheap Dell is - please post your
hymns under a unique subject, so that I can write a flame-reflector...

Olaf


-- 
Olaf Klein     smallo.bo.open.de       2:245/5800.12
From: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: DOS5.0 meets the creature from large SCSI disks and ISC 2.0.2
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Organization: Snake Island Research Inc, Toronto

I am contemplating an attempt to move my DOS5.0 (with damn windows
so I can run Corel Draw) onto my Unix Box.

My understanding of things as they are with ISC is:

a. Windows and other good things won't work under vpix.
   Ergo, I should run the system as a separate partition 
   using fdisk to change systems. This is a nuisance, but possible.

b. ISC and DOS 5.0 may or may not cohabit happily, particularly on
   a large (Fujitsu 2265 1.2GIG SCSI) drive. Can someone clarify this?

Is this setup likely to work, or will the time I spent dinking around
restoring broken operating systems be better spent in buying Yet Another
System and keeping them in apartheid?

Are they liable to trash each other?
Can I back up the DOS partition somehow (sensibly) onto a SCSI 
QIC drive from UNIX? (I am currently using PCTOOLS on DOS, but 
in spite of it being an excellent piece of software, it doesn't 
appear to support QIC tapes on a SCSI bus). 

Thanks. Bob

Robert Bernecky      rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.com  bernecky@itrchq.itrc.on.ca 
Snake Island Research Inc  (416) 368-6944   FAX: (416) 360-4694 
18 Fifth Street, Ward's Island
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2B9 
Canada
From: rbt@tous.oau.org (Robert B. Tate)
Subject: Re: Can you help a UUCP novice with ISC V3 please?
Summary: try Nutshell books
Organization: Tate Enterprises
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.194943.14060@abbott.com> pat@abtlabs.uucp (Patrick Conroy) writes:
>I could'a sworn I *wasn't a complete idiot* until I tried to get
>UUCP up and working today.

	It has a way of making you feel like you are one, doesn't it?

>
>If someone out there is using ISC V3 and an internal modem, (gee
>if it was a Gateway Telepath 9600 internal modem!), may I humbly
>beg of you to share:
>
>  *   your Devices file
>  *   your Dialers file
>  *   any other file that a novice like me wouldn't know to ask for
>
	Can't help you there, but....

>And can anyone PLEASE recommend a %$#%! manual that explains what
>the hell Unix wants from me and my modem?   After today I'll pay
>just about any price!
>
>I Thank you and my ulcer thanks you.                      Patrick
>

There are 2 books that helped me get going.

1.	"Managing UUCP and Usenet" O'Reilly & Associates (NUTSHELL)
2.	"Using UUCP and Usenet" O'Reilly & Associates (NUTSHELL)

Without them I may not have gotten going when I started. The first helps
you get it setup and running. The second lets you know what you should
expect and be be doing.



-- 
 rbt@tous.OAU.ORG  (Robert B. Tate)       | A little knowledge is a dangerous
 {ucf-cs,peora,tarpit}!tous!rbt           | thing. Any less can kill you.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Using FAS with Esix 4.0.4.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:37:14 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <1992Aug30.034007.906@homecare.com> jessea@homecare.com (Jesse W. Asher) writes:
>I installed the latest FAS driver that was posted here by Uwe and I
>found that when a uucp connection was established that it immediately
>dropped the connection when uucico tried to negotiate the protocol.
>Any ideas what could be causing this?

Well, was it working before you installed FAS?  If it wasn't, or you
don't know, then it sounds like this may be the well-known fubyte
problem.  (Yes, it would be rather sad if Everex still hasn't fixed
this in 4.0.4, but...)  See the FAQ posting, "Known Bugs in USL SVR4",
for more information and a fix.

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't make backups.  Real men never
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | accidentally delete files that they're going
                            | to need later.
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SCO support (was: How to replace disk driver in SCO Unix ?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:37:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: gator.BttAI8.8J4
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745

rolf@saans.north.de (Rolf Nerstheimer) writes:

>Nowadays, maybe Larry is right. 
>For my part, I don't like SCO anymore, they don't listen any longer. 
>It's seems, time has come to try something else.

I was running SCO.  I started with Xenix.  I really liked Xenix, and
at the time it was what I consider my only option.  After SCO Xenix
I wanted real Unix -- not a modified release -- so I jumped on the
ISC bandwagon.  ISC was fast, and worked.  Then I wanted to keep current
with the industry so I jumped on the SVR4 bandwagon - and I am now on
my 3rd release of SVR4.  Hopefully I'll see 2.1 shortly.  SVR4 works,
is current in the industry -- and follows standards (unlike some vendors
who modified 3.2 for long file names and symbolic links)..

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386