HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:10:01 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the
>
>Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.

Sun, arguably, "doesn't really", either, if you consider "us[ing] SYSV"
to mean "using straight SV off the tape".

AIX 3.x looks more like SV than BSD in several ways, and HP-UX does
also.  (Can you say "/etc/inittab"?) Ultrix is, as I understand it, more
BSDish than SVish; anybody know what their OSF/1 release looks like in
that regard?

(The issues here are:

	1) in the "default" programming environment, do those calls with
	   incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the
	   "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion?

	2) in the "default" user environment, do those commands with
	   incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the
	   "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion?

	3) do the "administrative" utilities look more like "BSD" ones,
	   "SV" ones, or Something Else?

I put "BSD" and "SV" in quotes because POSIX is making both of them
change....)
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:329 comp.unix.bsd:9033
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:10:43 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <RMF.92Nov17173206@chopin.cs.columbia.edu> rmf@chopin.cs.columbia.edu (Robert M. Fuhrer) writes:
> In short, AIX is quite unlike BSD and Sys V under the covers. If you want the
> covers on, it still may be less like them than you want. On the other hand,
> some of the differences are appealing...

My original comment stands.  I have worked on RS/6000en.

ian
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:305 comp.unix.bsd:8905
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 04:53:05 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1egusmINNtu@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz>
bcs@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz (Brent Summers) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.160727.9137@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu
>(Richard Warner) writes:
>|DEC is pushing OSF/1, which is has SysV roots,  IBM pushes AIX which is
>|a SysV derivative.  They may not call them SysV - but they are much
>|more SysV than BSD!

Funny, I had thought that OSF/1 was based on Mach and the
4.3BSD superstructure atop the Mach kernel.  Its reason for
existence is to provide an alternative to System V.

As for AIX being a SysV derivative, that's news to me, too:
AIX 1.x for PS/2s and AIX/370 were developed from BSD; AIX
3.x for the RS/6000 has as many BSD roots as SysV roots,
and its programming interface is more POSIX.1 than it is
either SysV or BSD; AIX/ESA (the successor to AIX/370) is
another OSF/1 port.

>This highlights the great lie: *if* you define "your operating system" in
>terms of kernel design and layout (although the contents of the programmers
>libraries and their exact semantics are much more important IMHO) then
>neither SVR4 nor any other so-called UNIX is going to be the `standard', or
>a significant `unifying force', or `the real UNIX' or any of the other neat
>phrases flying around at the moment.

True enough.  The System V PROGRAMMING INTERFACE is,
however, the de facto standard.  Most of the vendors who
maintain their own OSs instead of porting each new
version from USL are keeping their systems SVID compilant,
whether the kernel technology is derived from BSD or
pre-SVR3 AT&T.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: paulr@fulcrum.oz.au (Paul Rosham)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:12:57 GMT

joeg@gagme.chi.il.us (joe grosch) writes:

>A problem we are going to have to fix. That is unless you LIKE being under
>the thumb of AT&T. 

Actually, USL.

Is anyone working to make the optimisations of GCC better for SPARC. What
compiler techniques are they using?

F  U  L  C  R  U  M                                                     ()
__________________________________________________________________________
                           Paul Rosham                                /\
                        Senior Consultant                             ""
The Fulcrum Consulting Group,
611 Brunswick St,                                Telephone: +61-3-481-6188
North Fitzroy VIC 3068, Australia                      Fax: +61-3-482-4161
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:22:44 GMT

Frank Peters:
>OSF/1, AIX, HPUX and Irix (yes, I consider SGI major) are all strong
>descendants of the system V world.

AIX is unfortunately also a strong descendent of MVS and CMS (see s[mh]it
and the mini-disks underlying AIX file systems for a start).  It's a pity
that the thing doesn't come with CP67.
-- 
Geoff Collyer				world!geoff, world.std.com!geoff
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:323 comp.unix.bsd:8998
From: gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:23:52 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov16.075931@eklektix.com>, rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick
Dunn) writes:
 
> >...So, without someone to carry that torch, BSD will slowly die.  
> 
> On the face of it, it's true--**IF** nobody picks up the torch from
> CSRG,
> BSD will die.  But that's an "if pigs had wings" argument...the issue
> is
> not whether there is someone to pick up the torch, but which of the
> several
> possibilities will be the one to carry it.

Actually, the issue is what the user community *believes* is going to happen.
Significant damage has already been done (CSRG dropping the project without
another group already signed up to support it).  Few businesses, would purchase
an O/S with such an uncertain future, no matter how good it is.  BSDI and
386bsd will keep BSD alive in the academic world as O/S learning tools,
but as a commercial product, BSD *is* definitely dying.

My understanding is that, many of BSD's contributions to Unix have been
adopted in whole or in part into the SysVr4 O/S (where it has not conflicted
with POSIX or SysVr3).  So in a sense, BSD lives on.
                                                
-- 
Gary Browning        | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
		     | great idea hits you, and just before you realize
                     | what is wrong with it.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<1992Nov13.232053.7061@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>
	<VIXIE.92Nov14194825@cognition.pa.dec.com> <327@wafbox.UUCP>
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:36:40

[vixie]
>Face it, dude, AT&T doesn't know UNIX from a hole in their ass.

[fulton]
>(Who's gonna tell Robert, Brian, and the rest of the guys working Version
>nine that they don't know UNIX from "a hole in thier ass"?)

Most of the people at Bell Labs are smarter than I am and don't care what
I say anyway, and that's as it should be.  I forgot that Bell Labs is still
officially a part of AT&T; I did not intend to include the labs in my comment.

Editorial comment: Plan 9 looks pretty cool in a lot of ways.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:02:36 GMT

In article <STEINAR.HAUG.92Nov17103910@delab.sintef.no>, Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
|> And just where in HP-UX do you find "a tendency towards STREAMS"?

Mentat Streams has been available since versions 8.0.x (Innovus ported it,
or HP did, for the Portable NetWare product).  The OSF/1 offering has streams,
and the HP/UX 9.0.x has a different (native) streams.

					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
From: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Organization: Computing Center, Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:48:06 GMT

In article <Bxt8rG.DE3@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) says:
: In article <1992Nov15.035135.15514@ra.msstate.edu> fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
: > Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the
: 
: Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.  Who's left who
: qualify as ``major''?    I don't know if SGI are (a) major or (b) Sys V,
: but it doesn't really matter.

OSF/1, AIX, HPUX and Irix (yes, I consider SGI major) are all strong
descendants of the system V world.  Everything from use of directories
of boot scripts (rather than the BSDish rc.* scripts) to the use of
inittabs to the man page directory structure to terminfo instead of
termcap to a SYSV cron to a SYSV line printer system to a tendency
towards STREAMS points to this.

-- 
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Programmer  -  Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu  -  Phone: (601)325-7030  -  FAX: (601)325-8921
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:313 comp.unix.bsd:8955
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:35:05 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.solaris
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara


 >If Sun stuck to SYSV they would steadily lose their market share
 >leadership.  Software vendors would start writing to other (SYSV based)
 >vendors first and Sun second which would cost them more market
 >share...and so on.  And eventually, instead of catching flack for
 >changing to SYSV they would be catching flack (like they do with Open
 >Look) for pushing their own way instead of following the industry.

Presumably your first sentence was intended to be "If Sun stuck to
BSD"....
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:335 comp.unix.bsd:9088
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
From: bcs@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz (Brent Summers)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:53:42 +1300
Distribution: world
Organization: Comp Sci, U of Waikato, New Zealand
NNTP-Posting-Host: terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz

In article <1992Nov17.160727.9137@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu
(Richard Warner) writes:
|DEC is pushing OSF/1, which is has SysV roots,  IBM pushes AIX which is
|a SysV derivative.  They may not call them SysV - but they are much
|more SysV than BSD!

This highlights the great lie: *if* you define "your operating system" in
terms of kernel design and layout (although the contents of the programmers
libraries and their exact semantics are much more important IMHO) then
neither SVR4 nor any other so-called UNIX is going to be the `standard', or
a significant `unifying force', or `the real UNIX' or any of the other neat
phrases flying around at the moment.

There will be: SVR4 in all it's flavours; OSF/1; AIX (if it isn't subsumed
into OSF/1); BSD (which may or may not die commercially, but will exist for
years to come anyway on the desks of the world); CMU Mach; maybe eventually
something decended from Plan9; one day GNU; Tanenbaum's Amoeba for
enthusiasts; Linux; MINIX; xyzzyIX...

Get the idea?  `UNIX' is dead, SVR4 is an unsuccessful attempt to (to quote
someone else's sig) "...bring them all, and in the darkness bind them" - no
slur on AT&T/USL/Suns motives intended, of course.

Some people prefer BSD, some SysV, many don't know the difference and don't
care.  Perhaps we should all get on with working out how software
portability can be achieved across these platforms?  That is the point
really, isn't it?  Not "what do I type to create a new user account?"

-- 
+-Brent Summers, U of Waikato, NZ------------------------------------------+
|   Programming:  Navigating through an infinity of programs in search of  |
|   one of a much smaller infinity of reasonable solutions.  Blindfolded.  |
+--------------------------------------------------------bcs@waikato.ac.nz-+
Xref: sparky comp.unix.solaris:334 comp.unix.bsd:9087
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Solaris 1.1 vs. Solaris 2.0 (BSD vs AT&T)
From: bcs@terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz (Brent Summers)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:14:53 +1300
Distribution: world
Organization: Comp Sci, U of Waikato, New Zealand
NNTP-Posting-Host: terra.cs.waikato.ac.nz

In article <1992Nov19.164146.26801@osf.org> loverso@coltsfoot.osf.org 
(John Robert LoVerso) writes:
|AT&T != UNIX.  BSD != UNIX.  SYSV != UNIX.  (OSF/1 != UNIX)

Agreed!  
Does anyone have the correct text for Dennis Ritchie's comment re only
using the word "UNIX" as an adjective?

|UNIX == Tenth Edition.

Hmmm, not even sure that is true in any practical sense.

|And it is over.  See Plan 9.

Love to - got a copy of the sources?

-- 
+-Brent Summers, U of Waikato, NZ------------------------------------------+
|   Programming:  Navigating through an infinity of programs in search of  |
|   one of a much smaller infinity of reasonable solutions.  Blindfolded.  |
+--------------------------------------------------------bcs@waikato.ac.nz-+
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix,comp.sys.dec,comp.windows.x
From: pz@modtor.uucp (Peter Ziobrzynski)
Subject: Re: VXT2000 and HP-VUE setup ?
Organization: Godcorp
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:51:17 GMT

torstein@itek.norut.no (Torstein Meyer) writes:

>Please,
>Could anyone out there please give me hints on setup or configuration.
>We're running HP-UX.
>We're running VXTMP0011B/VXTSP0011B
>We're needing installation, font-setup, tftp-setup, ... info
>What should we be aware of - pitfalls.
>You're advice would be appreciated.
>--
>Torstein Meyer (Sys.Cons.) +47 83 80150 (fax:82420)
>	FORUT IT AS, NORUT-gruppen AS, N-9005 Tromsoe, Norway
>torstein.meyer@itek.norut.no
>	C=no;A=;P=uninett;O=norut;OU=itek;CN=torstein.meyer


We just took an order of 8 of these terminals.

After booting it over mop with 8 Mb RAM the terminals were crashing
regularly with register traces on screens. Any connection on LAT to Ultrix
or VMS were exhausting the machine resources. 
We upgraded to 12MB. Now they do not crash in trivial connections
but always when we start the X sessions with mwm(1) and
set background to gif immage.

General impression it that it is a very clumsy and unreliable 
machine. The local setup software is awkward and slow. While
in connection with the xdm(1) the pulldown menus can take up to
5 sec to respond.

We demonstrated and reported this to DEC and we hope to ship them back.

We evaluated in detail NCD 19c. This box can run circles around
VXTs with 6Mb of RAM. The local setup software is very nice.
NCD has remote configurations dowloaded from asci files, etc....

We are about to place order for 16 of NCD19cs.

- peter
-- 
Peter Ziobrzynski, pz@modtor.uucp, peter@sni.ca, Toronto, Ont. Canada
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: "Ian! D. Allen [CGL]" <idallen@guest0.iit.nrc.ca>
Subject: How to run dxbook under vax Ultrix 3.1 with no LMF?
Organization: Computer Graphics Laboratory, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:32:49 GMT

dxbook won't let me open anything because I don't have a license
registered, but I *can't* register the license under Ultrix 3.1 because
it doesn't have LMF (which came out under Ultrix 4).  Am I out of luck?
I don't want to have to put Ultrix 4 on this machine; my disk runneth
over already...
From: ejones@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Printer Accounting help
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:19:21 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

I have some questions about printer use accounting on a dectstaion 5000.
I have a LN03 laser printer, a Laser Writer (Postscript), and a line printer.
It seems that if I put af in the printcap it nullifies the if and of filters.
I need these filters along with the accounting. Is there another way to
keep an accounting record that will allow me to use the if and of filters?
Thanks for the help.
	
	Ed Jones
	Wright State University
	Dayton Oh 
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: micha@ekpux3.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Michael Schneider)
Subject: strange error message: flushdb.....
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:00:02 GMT



--
==================================================
Michael Schneider
Institut fuer Experimentelle Kernphysik
Universitaet Karlsruhe
Kaiserstr. 12, 7500 Karlsruhe 1

micha@ekpux2.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de
BD14@DKAUNI2.BITNET
==================================================
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: ccksb@trentu.ca (Ken Brown)
Subject: Seagate ST42100N /etc/disktab one or
Reply-To: ccksb@trentu.ca (Ken Brown)
Organization: Trent University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:35:25 GMT


Hello all,

I've got a Seagate ST42100N 1.9G drive for our DEC Station 5000 (Ultrix 4.2).
Looks like I need an /etc/disktab entry for this.  Can anyone out there
provide me with one or point me to where one exists?

Thanks in advance.

--
====================================================================
Ken Brown                                       voice: (705)748-1540
Trent University Computing & Telecommunications   fax: (705)748-1246
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8     internet: kbrown@trentu.ca
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: geiste@hsi.com (Doug Geiste)
Subject: ttyd0
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:21:54 GMT

Excuse my Ultrix ignorance, but what function does ttyd0 perform? 
It's one of the lines in the ttys file. There's no physical port for it.

Thanks
-- 
 Doug Geiste                           ||   "We are all faced with a series
 3M Health Information Systems         ||    of great opportunities brilliantly
 ...!uunet!his!geiste                  ||    disguised as impossible situations"
 geiste@hsi.com                        ||
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: lytras@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Apostolos Lytras)
Subject: Re: Perl program 'aub' crashes ULTRIX 4.2A
Keywords: perl,ultrix,crash,open files
Organization: Informatik Club d. Universitaet, Zuerich
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:12:09 GMT

Somehow half of my message was eaten the last time I posted this, so I
repost. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I don't know what crashed that disk, but I've been using 'aub' and
various other perl-scripts on this ULTRIX 4.2 system and never
experienced any trouble. The compilation of perl works perfectly even
with DEC's compiler. 

Cheers
- A.

-- 
	 lytras@ifi.unizh.ch   		|   Apostolos Lytras
	 lytras@avalon.physik.unizh.ch	|   Informatik Club der Uni
	 lytras@amiga.physik.unizh.ch  	|   Zuerich, SysAdmin
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: bt@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Taylor)
Subject: Anyone ....  DSYT1 64K ->T1 and WAN on 4.3 working???
Organization: Space Science and Engineering Center, UW Madison
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:02:02 GMT

I have a bunch(14) of 64 Meg DECstation 5000/240 with 1.65 Gig
and tlz06 dats. I also have the DSYT1 turbo channel controller.
I have worked through the weekend trying to get just the right Modules to load.

The June and the Oct Consolidated releases were both screwed up.

The June CDROMs had the Vax WDD210 WAN stuff instead of the Mips
code and the 4.3 Oct disks had no WDD210 Wan stuff of X25. DEC
got me the September WAN and X25 code but the kernel with the WAN
code does not run.


???????????????
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: steve@sdz01.uu.ch 
Subject: UUCP problems
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:03:19 GMT
Organization: Sandoz Technology Ltd.
Keywords: why is it suddenly broken?

I recently connected two Decstation 5000/200 workstations, both running
Ultrix 4.2a, via UUCP. I used the standard UUCP provided with Ultrix.
Everything worked fine (other than some parity errors with tip). I could 
transfer files, and mail worked.

Suddenly it is broken. When I run uucico -r1 -x9 -X9 -f, it dials,
connects, and makes it through the Shere - imesg -rmesg - Pgf -wmesg 'U'g
sequence. Then I get errors. The output looks like this:

rmesg - 'P' imsg >\020<
Pgf\000got Pgf
wmesg 'U'g
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 4001
send 073
pkcget: alarm 6002
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 8003
send 073
pkcget: alarm 10004
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 12005
send 073
pkcget: alarm 14006
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 16007
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 18008
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 20009
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
pkcget: alarm 22010
send 073
rec h->cntl 073
bad header (k==9) 073
about to close acu
close generic, Def = 7
clsacu entered
exit code 0


What has gone wrong? Can any of you UUCP gurus give me a hint?

Steven Husting

Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
From: kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein)
Subject: Re: Program nices itself?
Keywords: nice renice
Organization: Penn State, Laboratory for Elementary Particle Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.182128.26000@tc.cornell.edu> matthew@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Matthew Kleinmann) writes:
>We have a decstation5500 running ULTRIX V4.2A (Rev. 47).  The system was bought
>to run one large application for finite element analises.  We have been having this problem where after a day or more the program will nice itself to a level of 4.  Here is a sample:
>
>  PID USERNAME PRI NICE   SIZE   RES STATE   TIME   WCPU    CPU COMMAND
> 8050 amy       96    4  7436K 2036K run  1142:09 41.80% 41.80% alice_env

You know, I thought this was just me.  I've seen this happen before, and never
could figure out why.

In your case, I'm not sure whether or not this is a problem; if all this machine
is doing is running this one monster program, it's going to run at essentially
the same speed, no matter what the nice level (assuming nothing else is running
on it, of course).

--Ken