HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:24:07 GMT
Organization: CompuData Inc.

david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:

>>
>> Hey, give the guy credit. I wish I had a few highschool students with that
>> kind of spunk and writing ability here. Most I've met recently have a tough
>> time putting a paragraph together. Marc must be working for a friend of mine
>> up there in MI. Lucky guy!

>Well Fred, if writing ability and spunkiness are your primary concern, then
>I wish you all the Marc's you can handle

No, I give Marc credit for stating his view intelligently. He may not be
right, but that is for each shop and customer to decide. The most dangerous
thing here on the net is to jump all over someone and shut him up forever. You
will notice that Marc speaks only for himself and not his employer. There may
be other rules in place because 'management' sees the customer's needs in a
different light. Yet marc would rather see UNIX everywhere because he's in
support. I think it's a quite rational view to wish to have the same thing
everywhere especially since the differences in speed, resources etc are not as
dramatic from a dollars and cents view as you would want them to be.

 ... here we look for people who
>can correctly identify the clients' needs, and engineer the best possible
>solution for the client - regardless of market hype and all the
>irrelevancies that the computer industry confuses people with ...

Marc obviously does not make those decisions. He has his views. The best way
to learn anything is to go for it and see what the results are: experience. We
make mistakes and we learn from them. Maybe he's even learned something from
this discussion. There is sense in both sides as both of you freely admit.

From our standpoint, generally go the UNIX route unless the situation warrants
less growth and the need clearly will never be there. But we tell the customer
that Xenix is a bit of an orphan product and that someday he just might have
to move to UNIX. An informed customer is the best customer. He may even learn
to trust you to make technical decisions for him because you explained all the
options to him. If it doesn't matter to him I think UNIX is the better route
to take because hardware is too cheap not to go that way. Let's face it, the
market has obviated the need for Xenix and that is why SCO has UNIX.

Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     'mans feet have grown/so big 
26 Warren St.   home: fred@icdi10.compu.com  that he/forgets his littleness'
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		Don Marquis 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: royc@tcsrtp.uucp (Roy Andrew Crabtree)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: UUXQT during transfers
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:07:32 GMT
Organization: Triangle Computer Society

In article <1992Aug29.212856.20823@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
> ...
>as long as uusched is active.

	Bad bug! Bad bug!
	If uuxqt takes more than 5 minutes, you have a dead space
		of up to 5 minutes untim the next
		... or if uuxqt lockout fails more than
		one uuxqt!

>
>	:
>	/usr/lib/uucp/uusched &
>	uupid=$!
>	while kill -0 $uupid >/dev/null 2>&1 ; do
	Change these two lines:
>		/usr/lib/uucp/uuxqt &
>		sleep 300

		to this code:

			sleep 60 &  # High speed modems after all ...
			uuxqt
			wait $pid1
>	done
		And add this afterbyte (async delay and lockout
		to trap final files:  uusched dies after uuxqt terminates
		and puts out final files; kill fails to find it,
		so you must add:

			/usr/lib/uucp/uuuxqt & # Can anyone think of a fail here?
			wait  #I am old fashioned; wait for your children!

>
>Either this can be run from cron, or incorporated into whatever you
>already run from cron to do your polling.  I don't know if this is
>what you are asking for...but I'm not quite exactly what you are asking
>for.
>
>-- 
>Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | The secret to a long life is
>Unicom Systems Development   | knowing when it's time to go.
><chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   |  - Michelle Shocked


royc andrew crabtree
uunet!duke!wolves!tcsrtp!royc
From: system@precipice.chi.il.us (Vikki Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Help with direct connect.
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:47:29 GMT
Organization: Welch Research

Hi All,

  I am back to having a Xenix box personally and am getting more
experience than I got when I actually worked with one ;-).

  I'll ignore the ongoing "discussion" as to the usefullness of
Xenix as it has worked out quite well for a number of companies
that I have dealt with in the past.

  My current delemma is trying to get my dos box running Waffle
1.65 to talk to the Xenix box directly.

  The Xenix box is currently a downstream link from the messydos
box and works fine when the Xenix box polls the waffle box via
phone line.  I also connect to my news and mail feeds with no
problems (that ma bell doesn't create here in the land of phone
sewer).

  I am using uucico to connect to the three wire line to the
Xenix box.  Logging in from as a terminal using procomm or cu
from the/a messydos box works just fine.

  tty1a is enabled with the "m" definition from the stock
gettydefs file (seems to work OK with the 6 definition as well).

  What appears to be going on is that nothing is coming back
after the "login:" response from the xenix box.  I set the debug
level up to watch what happens and after sending the login to the
xenix box !nothing! shows up for either Password: or machine id.

  If I manually login using the same exchange everything works ok
but since I am a terminal it doesn't go any futher.

cu dump shows:

witch1!login: uupreci
Password:

Welcome to witch1 - Welch Research UUCP News and Mail Site.

Shere=witch1

  I had planned to include the uucico dump from \admin\uucico,
but had cleaned it out as it had gotten so large.

  What appears to be interesting is that while I get no Pasword:
prompt I can feed the password in on the tail of the login and I
get to the "awaiting remote ID (however it is actually worded)"
prompt where it times out waiting for that ?!?!

As in: tovwitch1  "" \r\d\r\d\r in: \L\p\P

  If anyone has any ideas on this, I sure would appreciate
hearing them.

  Thanks in advance.

  Take care, Vikki.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: manish@iitb.ernet.in (Manish Adeshara)
Subject: Login Problem .
Organization: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:27:15 IST

Hello ,
	We are using SCO Unix 5.3.2 . I am facing on problem . 
It does not allow me to login . I have not changed my password .
Still it says " iIncorrect login" . By using " sysadmsh" , 
( sysadmsh -> Accounts -> user -> examine ) , 
It says :
" unaccepatable user : manish . 
User's entry in /etc/passwd and protected Passwowd Database Differ .

	How  to solve it ? 
Is is possible to delete the user and create the user with same login id ?

Please send me reply by e-mail .
e-mail address .
manish@gateway.iitb.ernet.in
Thanks .

Manish .

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.unix.xenix.misc
From: pjb@hss.caltech.edu (Paul Brewer)
Subject: Retrieving BACKUP data 
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:40:54 GMT

I have a tape containing a XENIX backup of some important files.
XENIX is no longer used at my department, and the campus computing
consultant I talked to knew of no software to read the tape format,
from say, a sun or vax/vms system. We could get XENIX running again
on a spare AT I suppose, but since I am not knowledgable in XENIX 
operations this sounded like a real waste of time, at best. 

The tape is a 3M Data cartridge DC600A. 

Does anyone know of a program I can run on some OTHER system, that can
restore the files.They are data, not executable, and I'm pretty sure 
that the binary format they are in is readable by software I have. 
But only after I get them off the tape.

Thanks

Paul Brewer
pjb@hss.caltech.edu

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: Charlie Rosenberg <crosenberg@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Date: 05 Sep 92 22:18 PDT
Subject: Question about faliases
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1534600015:000:195
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!crosenberg    Sep  5 22:18:00 1992



I just read the man pages for aliases and faliases.  I have had
aliases figured out for some time but I don't really get the difference
between aliases and faliases.  This is on a Xenix system.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura)
Subject: Re: HELP for a beginner- new machine needed, compiler wanted, etc.
Organization: Guru Systems/Funware Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:37:07 GMT

In <1992Sep14.030505.2123@athena.cs.uga.edu> millia@athena.cs.uga.edu (David W. Millians) writes:
>1) Is this the main traffic group for SCO-Xenix discussion? What other
>groups are there dealing with it?

It is.

>2) What is the current version of it? I have 2.3.1 on my server.

The current version is 2.3.4.

>As I understand it, SCO has moved to making straight Unix, and Xenix
>is kind of a lame duck. 

It's not, IMHO of course.

>4) I have found no rudimentary C compiler on the server. There is nobody
>there who knows anything about the machine, of course. Does it come
>with such a thing? Or am I going to have to get a Gnu compiler?

SCO sells a separate software development package which provides the
compiler and libraries.

Currently you have to get the software development package to use the
GNU C compiler. Steve Bleazard and Ronald Khoo ported GNU C, GNU C++
and gdb to Xenix. Personally I compile everything with the GNU
compiler, saves me a lot of trouble.
-- 
				Christoph Badura  ---  bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org

ISO? Nicht immer, aber immer M-vfter.
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:03:04 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <9209061131.AA05771@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>So what exactly have you found out there that will work for Unix that won't
>work for Xenix?

It's not really an issue of "working" or "not working".  If you have
the source and are willing to hack on it long enough, you can make
almost anything work under Xenix.  It's just an issue of how much time
and effort you're willing to invest.

As an example, there are two major public-access Unix systems in the
Ann Arbor area.  One of them is running on an Altos 68K machine with
System III.  The other is running on a Sun 2/170 with SunOS 3.2.  Now,
both machines are of similar vintage, and both are somewhat
antiquated.  But guess which one is easier to port PD software to?
And then, guess which one has more PD software installed on it.

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't use Windows.  Real men use X. 
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | Only a real man would use a GUI where the
                            | shift keys after "Alt" are "Super" and "Hyper."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:05:24 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <9209140655.AA28168@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>it's install instructions updated lately.  (but I highly doubt it, you
>never do indicate exactly *which* "third-party" mailer you are talking
>about that you had so much trouble with)

smail2.5, then smail3.1.

>So far, I haven't seen ONE SINGLE person in this group complain about
>installing a better mailer like you have.  Why is that???

Probably because you haven't been looking hard enough.  I don't
remember if it was here or in another one of the comp.unix.* groups,
but I definitely remember someone speaking up about the large amount
of trouble they had with smail and Xenix.  (No, I don't remember their
name, but maybe they'll speak up.)

>Standards?  So mail is mail on any Unix system???   Right ...

Not exactly.  But one SysV mailer is generally pretty similar to
another (i.e., AT&T binmail/mailx), and one BSD mailer is generally
pretty similar to another (i.e., sendmail).  smail3 is even a complete
drop-in replacement for sendmail; just move /usr/lib/sendmail aside,
add a symlink from /usr/local/bin/smail to /usr/lib/sendmail, and
you're up and running.  How much easier can you get?  At least ODT has
finally added sendmail, for those of us that prefer standards.  (Well,
it's not IDA, but at least it's a start.)

>DIFFICULT PROCESS  (so far there's been quite a few ppl to support this
>stance and NOT A SINGLE ONE to support yours, sorta makes ya think don't
>it?)

Not really.  I've never believed in religiously following the masses
-- generally just gets you in trouble.

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't use Windows.  Real men use X. 
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | Only a real man would use a GUI where the
                            | shift keys after "Alt" are "Super" and "Hyper."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: seedrom@netcom.com (Kenneth Lew)
Subject: Booting Xenix 2.3.1 with OS/2 Boot Manager?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 23:15:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Has anyone been successful?
Keywords: os/2 boot manager

I'm running Xenix 2.3.1 from a 40Mb partition on a 200Mb hard disk and tried
unsuccessfully to boot up Xenix with OS/2's Boot Manager. I've come to the
conclusion that I have a "chicken or the egg" situation here. If I boot from
the Xenix install disks first to let Xenix create its own partition and later
install Boot Manager, then using Boot Manager to boot the Xenix partition
results in a "boot0: error 80." If I install Boot Manager first, I cannot
create a Xenix partition since Boot Manger will not let me edit the FS Name
of the Xenix partition to XENIX 1; if I go ahead anyway and let Xenix install
do its thing, Xenix clobbers Boot Manager's partition table recording. Right
now, I boot the MS-DOS partition with Boot Manager, FDISK to make the 
Xenix partition active, and then boot up Xenix: seems contorted and defeats
the purpose of Boot Manager. Has anyone been able to boot Xenix directly with
Boot Manager?
					seedrom@netcom.com
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:03:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <9209021728.AA01630@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:


>> [Unix is] cleaner, and is easier to administer than Xenix is.
>
>Cleaner?
>Xenix is the absolute most mature and stable product on the *nix market.  
>What exactly do you mean by "clean"?  
>Easier to administer?

Unix is easier to administer?

Yes, by me.  But not by Joe Small Customer  who doesn't really want
to administer ANYTHING.

Remember, from his point of view, the OS is not anything he wants: it's
something that has to be bought in order to get the real work done.

		Tony


Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Adaptec 1740 modes.
Organization:  SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 11:14:51 EDT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA06687; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:39:42 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA11907; Sun, 6 Sep 92 08:39:30 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA24436; Sun, 6 Sep 92 11:36:19 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA05670; 6 Sep 92 11:14:52 EDT (Sun)
X-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <1992Sep3.140012.18920@bilver.uucp>; from "Bill Vermillion" at Sep 3, 92 2:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>
> It's one thing to rely on SCO and another to rely on SCO Magazine.
> 

What about if SCO Mag publishes something they attribute to
"SCO Support Services" ???   

> With things like that in mind I read the SCO Magazine very carefully to
> see if the response is a proper one or not.

Agreed ... and so do we ... but we do read it, regardless, and if something
interesting or enlightening comes out, we take note of it ...

> If the vendor says it, you have a better chance of getting proper
> information than from a secondary source (most of the time :-) ).

Agreed again ... and to restate my view: I don't think anybody should ever
take anybody's words as gospel, either from the net or from a magazine ...

#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization: James Carter & Associates
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 22:38:12 GMT

Gentlemen,
   I have been following your discussion sic argument concerning the proper
use, client base, mailer, and management style for a Xenix/286 system versus
the Unix systems, and to put it bluntly...you are basically arguing the same
points. Xenix/286 is loosing 3rd party vendor support because of the market,
not because it is un-needed. When the vendors started selling the 386 cpu's
for single digit percentages more than a fast 286, the death knell was
sounded for most of the 286 specific software. The support prices have gotten
higher because more and more clients are moving into the 386 (and 486)
arenas as they wear out older 286 (and 8088) hardware. There just isn't
enough price differential to prevent them from moving past the 286 platforms.

   My first copy of Xenix was named Xenix/11, which attempted to run on a
DEC PDP11/24, albeit very poorly. However, at the time late 70's, that's all
there was folks. As "The Santa Cruz Operation" changed their name to SCO and
moved their Xenix onto the 286 platform, I like many others followed...the
maintenance expense on the PDP was getting out of hand. When they moved on
to the 386 chipset, I followed again because there were specific tasks that
I wanted to be able to do, and again the expense of maintaining the old 286
box, got out of hand. I had a 3B box for a while between these other two,
and found significant enough differences between the administration of the
Unix vs. Xenix, that I once again brought the Xenix system back on line.

   As the Xenix toolset becomes more and more available on Unix, and as
more and more of the Unix functionality becomes available on Xenix, we will
probably see the demise of Xenix, especially the older versions. (You can't
even get support for my old Xenix/11 anymore).

   So I propose questions of my own...why spend our time arguing whether
one system is better than another, or whether one is dying out and another
isn't? Wouldn't everyone, general public and end users alike, be better
served if we all worked to make the eventual transition happen as transparent
as possible?

Sincerely...
-- 
===============================================================================
James A. Carter	/ Sapulpa, Oklahoma, USA	No disclaimer necessary, I own
(918) 224-6522					the company!
From: Charlie Rosenberg <crosenberg@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Date: 08 Sep 92 07:46 PDT
Subject: Re: Question about faliases
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1534600015:cdp:1534600016:000:228
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!crosenberg    Sep  8 07:46:00 1992



I have one opinion that the difference is that faliases is used for
forwarding that is not local.  Another person tells me that faliases is
for temporary forwarding.  I think I will read the gobbly-gook for the
sixth time. :-)

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:11:19 GMT

In <BuHxy5.24r@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

:smail 2.5 is okay if you are a UUCP host with one or two connections,
:and are punting most of your mail to a smart host.  It falls down when
:you want to use more than one transport, or do any sort of routing
:based on domains, or use SMTP.  This is where smail3 comes in; it is
:appropriate in nearly every case where sendmail would be appropriate.

I'm glad you told me that Marc!  I've been running smail 2.5 on
camco for several years now with over 50 connections pumping
about 5MB of mail traffic every day, and we're the smart-host for
most of these sites.  I wonder where all the mail has been going!

Granted we're not using SMTP (yet), and when we do I'm going to
have to switch MTAs and I'm still debating whether to go to
smail 3.2.? or mmdf.  Looking at the documentation it seems to
six of one half-dozen for the other, but I probably will go with
mmdf simply because I support a lot of SCO systems and I probably
don't need to yank it an replace it unnecessarily.

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?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: zambotti@wpowz.enet.dec.com (Walter Zambotti DEC)
Subject: Idle ttys hang applications???
Reply-To: zambotti@wpowz.enet.dec.com (Walter Zambotti DEC)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:01:34 GMT

Hello

I am having a strange problem using ttys from within a C application.

The environment is :

	386 4 meg of mem
	Xenix 2.3.4
	Dev 2.3.1
	Stallion 16 port/tty I/O board

The problem appears as the tty going dead if the tty is not read from
continuously.  If the tty is accessed every couple of seconds then it
works indefinitely (day after day).  If the operator leaves the
application for two or three minutes and then returns he find the tty
locked up.

close(2)ing the tty and re-open(2)ing the tty seems to have no effect
but restarting the application does clear the problem. 

At first, because of the above, I suspected the application was
corrupting file related memory structures.  But this didn't make sense
because the problem only occurs after the state of the application
becomes IDLE and the application isn't even been executed.  If the
application is continuely used then there is no problem (for days on
end).

About the C program :

The applcation first open(2)s the "tty??" device and then sets up the
the baud/etc with ioctl(2) and then sits in a small select(2) loop
waiting for the "tty??" or STDIN to become read ready i.e. :

	device = open("/dev/tty010", O_READONLY)
	ioctl(device, TCGETA, devicesettings)
	devicesettings.c_lflag |= ICANON 
	ioctl(device, TCSETA, devicesettings)

	loop
		FD_SET(device, &readfds)
		FD_SET(STDIN, &readfds)

		select(maxfiles, &readfds, null, null, null)

		if(FD_ISSET(device, &readfds)) ProcessDevice()
		if(FD_ISSET(STDIN, &readfds)) ProcessSTDIN()
	endloop

The application is also curses based so I'm not to sure what ioctl
settings have been chosen for STDIN.

I am currently getting an rs-232 line analyser so I can see if the
device is behaving.  But if it were the device (temperature measuring
device) then why does it only reset itself after I restart the
application.  There shouldn't be anyway for the device to know that I
have restarted the application I hope!

If anyone has seen something similar or can help direct me to find the
cause of this problem can you post a reply please.

regards,

Walter Zambotti
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco