HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:14:48 GMT
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>Dell has gutted its Unix group.  Given economic conditions, they
>seem to have decided that what they have is enough.  True, their

What is your source of info on this?

What does this mean?  That they are no-longer selling unix?  That they
have ceased further development and bug fixes?  That they will drop
4.0.X in favor of Solaris?

-- 
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.sys5.r4
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:14:57 GMT

paul@devon.lns.pa.us (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.) writes:

>Isn't DOS emulation builtin to SVR4.2?

From what I've heard it depends on the vendor.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:31:32 GMT

In <BvB2xA.BsK@maxed.amg.com> ed@maxed.amg.com (Ed Whittemore) writes:

:Actually we've heard nothing but good things about Solaris 2.0, and

Who have you been listening to, The SunSoft rep., Magazines that
depend on Sun for their advertising income?  The only things I've
seen about Solaris have been that it's late and buggy.

:it's a surprise to hear this negative opinion with no facts along.

:So, what are all the awful things you've heard about Solaris 2.0?

It doesn't really exist on [34]86 platforms, and that several
manufacturers have decided not to ship it because what they got
from Sun was too buggy.

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?
From: heiko@uwesa.hanse.de (Heiko Weber)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Share port between incoming login's and fax ?
Date: 28 Sep 92 07:56:24 GMT
Keywords: fax software unix getty login phone
Summary: want to receive faxes and logins on one port

Hey there,
I am looking for a piece of software like a Fax-Getty, which
monitors the modemport for incoming faxes or logins, analyses
the connect result of the modem and switch either to getty/login
or the fax software (like netfax).

Every fax-software I've got so far (netfax, GNU-fax 3.2) has it
own port-daemon for incoming faxes, but do not allow to share the
port with login for indials.

Thanks in advance
      Heiko
-- 
| Heiko Weber jun. | heiko@uwesa.hanse.de | carrier: 049-4169-448 |
| D-2151 Sauensiek | Loehe 5 |  Germany   | voice:  049-4169-1366 | 
+------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
From: jde@esix.everex.com (Jeff Ellis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:32:29 GMT
Organization: Esix Computers, Inc
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Stew Ellis (ellis@nova.gmi.edu) wrote:
:>I thought DOS tasking, including the ability to run Windows 3.1 apps, was
:>part of the base product.  Isn't that true?

No they just have support for dos merge or vpix like 4.0.x.

--
Jeff Ellis 					jde@esix.everex.com
Esix Computers, Inc.				
For Support: support@esix.everex.com   For Sales:   sales@esix.everex.com
Disclamer: I do not speak for Esix Computers, Inc or Everex Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: SysV
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:18:07 GMT


How well does Dell SYSV4 Unix depend on Dell hardware, or can it be run
on other machines?
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Summary: I've talked to them
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:37:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ddsw1.Bv956p.196
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL

In article <1992Sep27.181448.28583@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>
>>Dell has gutted its Unix group.  Given economic conditions, they
>>seem to have decided that what they have is enough.  True, their
>
>What is your source of info on this?
>
>What does this mean?  That they are no-longer selling unix?  That they
>have ceased further development and bug fixes?  That they will drop
>4.0.X in favor of Solaris?

I have a suspicion that there will be an official response to this soon.  I
forwarded the original to Dell's support team, and got a rather "heh,
where'd that come from" in reply.  I pointed them here.

They definately are still selling their Issue 2.2 Unix -- I have people with
open orders out for it right now, and expect delivery next week.  Their
initial response was "we're NOT getting out of this business".

Stay tuned and take rumor-mongering with a large grain of salt until proven.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: bcochavy@ilux39.intel.com (Baruch Cochavy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: UHC SVR4 & Gtw/2K EISA
Keywords: SCSI hangs
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:39:51 GMT
Organization: Intel

In article <1139@tdat.teradata.COM> wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com writes:
>Can anyone shed some light on the cause for the following SCSI hang problem.
>
[deleted]
>
>Can anyone out there tell me who to believe - UHC or GateWay? Has anyone experienced
>similar problems? Any recommended work arounds?
>
>Thanx in advance for your help.
>
>bill   

Hi,

	I am experiencing the very same problem, I think. I am using a
Gateway2000 machine (don't know the exact MB type), AHA1742, Archive 2150S.
They systems not only hangs the same way you described, but sometimes even
when I do heavy tape I/O (backup to tape). I don't think it has anything to 
do with the tape, 'cause I installed an EXABYTE EXB-8200 and had the same
results. Actually, what puzzles me is that now that the tape is removed,
it works flawlessly.

	I am sure I don't have any cabling problems -- I checked, re-checked
and triple-checked it to make sure all terminators where in the proper
places and that all the cable are secured.

I am using stock USL UNIX 4.0 4.0 .

	Baruch
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Baruch Cochavy             phone: +972-4-355807                    |
|   iSWP, INTeL, ISRAEL      bcochavy@iil.intel.com                  |
|                                                                    |
| "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it"   |
|    - P.K. Dick                                                     |
| "Quality is what refuses to stop working when you stop maintaining |
|  it " -- mine.                                                     |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: scott@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Evernden)
Subject: Re: The bad news about Dell Unix (was: SysV)
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:40:32 GMT

In article <bonnie.717532299@earth.njit.edu> bonnie@rat2.njit.edu (Bonnie MacKellar) writes:
>I have heard, both from a DELL technical person and
>a SunSoft salesperson, that DELL is likely to
>distribute Solaris in the future.

So?  This was publically announced by DELL *months* ago, when Solaris 2.0
was in the news.  Is there something I'm missing?

-scott
----
GrayMatter Software Co.              Holliston, MA   508 429-7867
scott@unixland.natick.ma.us    scott@opl.com    spe@world.std.com
user interface and application development technologies and tools

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:24:57 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger):
>ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.

So what's your point?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: sendmail for SVR4
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:20:01 GMT

In article <yv!p!wj.kelly@netcom.com> kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen) writes:
> Not only this but the forwarding only works from an entry in your
>/var/mail/user and the mail file has to be empty before starting forwarding
>and ending it .forward isnt supported and the alias syntax is
>incompatible with sendmail... mailsurr is a REAL abortion......
>a very unhappy (former mailsurr user)...
>sysadmin
>     cheers
>     kelly

I believe you're supposed to use the "mail -F" feature to forward mail
in SYSV4, are you not?
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: SysV
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:37:42 GMT

In article <BvAIvF.22n@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>ODT is also a 3.2 release.  It IS NOT SVR4.

Here's a clue, Karl:  the original poster complained about the lack of
certain things from SysV, all of which both SysVr4 and SCO's 3.2v4 have.
Did the person ask for SysVr4?  No.  Does the person need SysVr4?  Well, if
(s)he wants BSD, then SysVr4 is probably better than 3.2v4, unless, of
course, (s)he does not have as much memory or disk, in which case (s)he
should decide what (s)he wants to do.

Someone then pointed out that SysVr4 has those features, and someone else
pointed out that SCO did too.  Both systems meet the person's requirements,
based on the original posting.

Or do you care more about buzzwords than features?

-- 
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.
From: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: UHC SVR4 & Gtw/2K EISA
Keywords: SCSI hangs
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:36:31 GMT
Reply-To: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Distribution: world
Organization: Teradata/NCR

Can anyone shed some light on the cause for the following SCSI hang problem.

I'm running SVR4 from UHC on a 33MHZ 486 EISA system from GateWay 2000 (Enigma
Motherboard - rev D6). The system has an Adaptec 1742 SCSI controller, which is
configured to run in "standard" mode, (i.e. emulating an Adaptec 1542B) as UHC
(nor any other SVR4 peddler) offers a driver that supports the Adaptec 1742 in
true 32 bit mode.

The problem I have is in reading in data from cpio and/or tar tapes from my
Archive Viper 2150S streamer tape drive. The data reads in fine, but on SOME
tapes, the system hangs after reading in all the data from the tape. I should
say that the tar or cpio process hangs, as other running processes continue to
execute till they need to perform disk IO. Eventually, all the processes hang,
and according to KDB they were put to sleep in some sd01... (SCSI driver) routine. 

I've checked (and rechecked) my SCSI cabling & terminations, tried two different
2150S tape drives and two different MAXTOR disk drives. Gateway has also replaced
the motherboard once and the SCSI controller three times. The failure occurs in
exactly the same way regardess of how I order the above array of hardware into
a runnable configuration.

The folks at UHC claim I have bad hardware - which I find hard to believe since
I've replaced everything except the power supply, AND aside for the tape hang, the
system works fine. The folks at GateWay claim that there are minor incompatabilities
between how a REAL Adaptec 1542B works and how a 1742 emulates one - especially
with non-SCSI II devices, and UHC's driver should be smart enough to deal with
the differences.

Can anyone out there tell me who to believe - UHC or GateWay? Has anyone experienced
similar problems? Any recommended work arounds?

Thanx in advance for your help.

bill   


Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: jobs to run at powerdown
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:45:41 GMT

bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>Perhaps you would have more success if you put it in /etc/rc0.d  :-)

I did -- aren't the scripts executed in sucession?

ie: -- if you are in init state 3 and go to 0, isn't everything
in rc2.d run, followed by everything in rc1.d, then everything in
rc0.d?


-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:85 comp.unix.sys5.r3:8
From: randy@kcin.alphacdc.com (Randy S. Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:21:31 GMT
	<1992Sep28.193742.4707@kithrup.COM>
	<BvB4os.6nn@portal.hq.videocart.com>
	<1992Sep29.004745.28144@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Randy's own unix box..

All of this discussion of various point between the SystemV 4.X and SCO
3.2.4 have caused a bit of interest at the office that I work at.  Let me
tell you why.

We (ViTel) are finally planning a move from our old System V.2 68020 based
Plexus equipment to some form of PC based platform.  ViTel is currently
starting to evaluate SCO 3.2.4. ( which the person who runs the R&D
department thinks it will work. ).

What are the technical advantages of picking a V.4 variant over SCO or
other V.3 variants?  No religious issues please.  Especially where the
application that is *heavy* into database processing and communications 
(TCP/IP and regular serial I/O).  Please include comments on Vendor
Support, and ease of porting applications and the development envrionments
proided. 

Any comments that you may be able to provide are appreciated!  

(Please send replys to randy@kcin.alphacdc.com.  Thanks

Thanks!

-randy
-- 
Randy Welch   also known as..       (home) randy@kcin.alphacdc.com
Boulder, CO                           or   randy%kcin@csn.org
"MS-DOS is to computing as the      (uucp) {csn,scicom}!kcin!randy
 black plague was to Europe" - NH   (at&t) (w) 303-442-6717 (h) 303-530-3235
From: cmv@looney.ih.att.com (Craig M. Votava)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Commodore's SVR4 port for the Amiga
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:50:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsc.1992Sep30.225045.18140
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Gosh, with all of this heavy duty Dell SVR4 discussion going on, I feel like
an underdog, voicing my meek little opinion of Commodore's SVR4 port to the
Amiga 3000 platform.

Yes, Commodore, and no it's not a video game machine...

I've had my Amiga 3000 for almost 2 years now, running SVR4 (I don't know the
USL version number, probably in the zero's) and am extremely happy with it.

HARDWARE:
- The Amiga 3000 has a Motorola 68030 running at 25MHz with the 68882
	math-coprocessor, and all sorts of custom hardware gunk to make it
	run very quickly.

- The motherboard memory populated out to 18MB of RAM where 2MB is for
	graphics memory (120ns static column), and 16MB for program
	execution (80ns static column).

-I have 2 SCSI hard disks (Maxtor and Quantum) totalling about 400MB, and
	an Insite FLOPTICAL SCSI drive that handles 720K, 1.44M and 21M
	floppies. There's also a 120M SCSI QIC tape drive externally mounted.

-The video stuff includes a DMI resolver board and a HP1188A monitor which
	comfortably gives me 1280x1024 with 8-bit color.

-An Ethernet board

SOFTWARE:
Commodore's port of SVR4 labeled "Amiga Version 2.1p2a" along with all of the
great stuff they include, like X11R4 and X11R5 (beta version, but with
the right patches, it runs fine) : binaries and source, public domain
code out the wazoo : binaries and source, actual real live source code
for all of the amiga device drivers, and probably a whole bunch of
other stuff that I'm forgetting.

OPINIONS:
I've had this setup running on my desk connecting me into our development
network (mostly Sun SPARC's) and have been very happy with it. X11R5, NFS,
sendmail, xrn, everything that is available for the Sun's works fine on the
little 'ol AMIGA. It's not as fast as the SPARC's, but not too far behind
either.

The only problem is that Commodore does not seem to be following up their
Unix development very well (at all?), so I don't know what kind of support/
upgrades will occur in the future, but realize that I have some old unix-pc/
7300/3b1 machine at home that I'm still using, so you can tell I strech out
platform usefullness long after most folks start using them as planters and
doorstops.

I was under the impression that this version of SVR4 was one of the first to
be available, is that true? It certainly has become one of the more stable
SVR4 versions I've seen.

Feel free to post comments and rebuttals as you like.

-Craig


	()_()	Craig Votava
	 (_)	AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IL
		cmv@looney.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: martin@unislc.uucp (Martin Cryer)
Subject: Re: UHC SVR4 & Gtw/2K EISA
Reply-To: martin@unislc.UUCP (Martin Cryer,D1Z01,5754)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:55:19 GMT
Keywords: SCSI hangs

In article <1139@tdat.teradata.COM> wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com writes:
>Can anyone shed some light on the cause for the following SCSI hang problem.
>
>I'm running SVR4 from UHC on a 33MHZ 486 EISA system from GateWay 2000 (Enigma
>Motherboard - rev D6). The system has an Adaptec 1742 SCSI controller, which is
>configured to run in "standard" mode, (i.e. emulating an Adaptec 1542B) as UHC
>(nor any other SVR4 peddler) offers a driver that supports the Adaptec 1742 in
>true 32 bit mode.

Tsk Tsk. Check your facts....

UNISYS SVR4.0/MP supports the 174X controller in enhanced mode
just fine. We get a significant performance boost with this controller
which is standard in the U6000/15 and U6000/35 systems, amongst others,
with our SDISCSI based driver.

I know we are not alone!

You may want to talk to Adaptec's bulletin board to get the latest
microcode and ECU .CFG files and overlays. Comp.periph.scsi
entries often have the number.

The 1740 in standard mode is very close to a 1542, try posting to
the comp.periph.scsi and get Roy Neese to help some. He may know
your problem...

Martin Cryer
SVR4.0/MP Development
UNISYS Salt Lake City

All opinions are my own and not those of my employer.
From: jde@esix.everex.com (Jeff Ellis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:18:30 GMT
Organization: Esix Computers, Inc
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Richard Griffiths (richardg@ssd.intel.com) wrote:
:>|> Let me know what you net users what, while we can still add it!
:>
:>How about DOS filesystem support and DOS emulation capabilities. 

Noted.......
--
Jeff Ellis 					jde@esix.everex.com
Esix Computers, Inc.				
For Support: support@esix.everex.com   For Sales:   sales@esix.everex.com
Disclamer: I do not speak for Esix Computers, Inc or Everex Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Subject: Re: sendmail for SVR4
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN

In article <jim.717573239@ferkel> jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
=In <ellis.717556867@nova> ellis@nova.gmi.edu (Stew Ellis) writes:
=>Exactly how does one become an ex mailsurr user and still be a SYSVR4 user?
=
=Simple.  Required is liberal use of the following commands: rm, ftp, make.
=Get the sendmail sources (I reccomend sendmail+IDA), remove the old mail
=software, build the new and install.  I'm a heck of a lot happier now.
=
	Alternately, you could tell the mail subsystem to always use
	sendmail by adding an entry to mailsurr that always runs
	sendmail on the incoming/outgoing message. This is what DELL
	and others who ship sendmail do.

		-Rob
From: jcrowe@mpd.tandem.com (Joseph Crowe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Enabling call in ports under SVR4
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:28:51 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Originator: jcrowe@thrash

Hi Folks,

   After configuring a port service under a ttymon port monitor that I
think should run, I am having a difficult time getting login to
activate when a modem (Telebit Qblazer) signals carrier detect.  Well,
in fact, it does not happen.  Anybody have any suggestions.  I am not
using cu from the calling machine as it is only a MacIntosh with a
terminal emulator.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Joe Crowe                     |    "Been there, Done that
Tandem Computers Inc.         |     Been there, don't want to go back"
Internet Address:jcrowe@mpd.tandem.com         Brian Eno/John Cale
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: scott@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Evernden)
Subject: Re: Unix "Lite" is not so light
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:46:33 GMT

In article <1a7cspINNmmu@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>In article <22891@optima.cs.arizona.edu> dsiegel@optima.UUCP (Dave Siegel) writes:
>> Also, is SVR4.2 not the "Unix Light"?  Why in the world would I 
>> want a stripped down unix, incapable of most of the things I
>> originally purchased it for?
>
>My understanding is that SVr4.2 has all the function of SVr4.0,
>and more.  It is light only in that it is better organized, and
>so can be run with less memory.  It also provides a toolkit and
>interface builder for creating Motif/OpenLook GUI programs.

Like all the "new" Unices coming down the pike, 4.2 UnixLite (like Solaris 2)
is lite because all those "useless" programmer tools will not be in there:

% cc -c xeyes.c
cc: Command not found.

-scott

----
GrayMatter Software Co.              Holliston, MA   508 429-7867
scott@unixland.natick.ma.us    scott@opl.com    spe@world.std.com
user interface and application development technologies and tools
From: peter@admin.mport.COM (Peter Tostado)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: SysV
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:01:09 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A


Somebody get David a Cheeseburger.

Your taste in music is as good as your choice in UNIX vendors.  We are
very fortunate to have you on our bandwagon of offerings.

You make this market worth while.

Thanks 

Peter
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: jobs to run at powerdown
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:31:43 GMT

In article <BvM4sD.1wu@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>How do I add new jobs to be executed at powerdown?

>I have a script called K39bbs in /etc/rc2.d that I would like
>to run when bringing the machine down -- and it isn't running.

Perhaps you would have more success if you put it in /etc/rc0.d  :-)

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4