HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:59:06 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <C188DI.EHE@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

| >  And you wind up with a legal copy of Xenix which has some resale
| >value.
| 
| But today, not much.

Actually, Xenix is much better to run than UNIX in a laptop, unless you
really NEED the features. You can run Xenix in about 2MB, although 4 is
nicer. Can't do that with UNIX. (To slightly change the topic) I like
Dell for that, too, because I can put runtime, networking, C, and swap
in 70MB and have room for a few apps.

| I suspect that the Intel Unix systems may be doomed.  The introduction of
| low-cost Sparc-based systems could eat Intel's lunch.  The current offerings
| (and not just from Sun) are nice, fast, <cheap> and expandable through the
| network.  

  I don't argue the point, but while the 8086 and 286 systems are gone,
Intel continues. And the 386 is vanishing as the 486 gets down to $300
or some more. If Intel ever chooses to ship the Pentium it should be
faster than the bottom of the line SPARC, etc, and the ability to run
DOS software is still important to some people. If someone were to ship
a RISC platform with an intact V.4 (instead of BSD) I'd be more
inclined. I like V.4 sysadmin and layout better than BSD, a rarity (and
I admin Suns and Ultrix at work).
| 
| The other interesting thing is that "board level" products are now available
| for the "build your own clone" group.  The prices on these are coming down
| <fast>.  Again, they're much faster than the 486 systems of today.  

  Another good point. The system board and frame buffer are the only
cost differentials these days, since memory, disks, and monitors are
essentially the same price for all platforms. We're using Sun 1GB SCSI
drives in PCs these days, because we got a good price on quantity.
| 
| Then there is the application base.  Sparc systems have a reasonably good
| one.  PC Unix systems have a horrible one.

  True, but only for shrink wrapped apps, and lots of PC stuff is now
available for SCO (and runs on V.4, in my experience). While compiling
net stuff was really bad for Xenix, and is still a hassle for SCO (due
to header files), most V.4 will handle net source with only minor
changes at the makefile level. Not all, I agree, but when I got my
first V.4 I ported about 60 apps in a weekend, and most of the fixes
were genuinely non-portable code which was found with the compiler, not
the debugger.

  There's more software for Xenix/SCO UNIX than SPARC, and priced
better. As the vendors see a small system market, I believe some will
drop prices to gain market share.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1294 biz.sco.general:5515 comp.unix.sys5.r3:380 comp.unix.sysv386:17897
From: dlucy@sandr.COM (Doug Lucy)
Subject: Owner/Group weirdness on PC/TCP mounted drive
Organization: S&R Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:49:38 GMT

I've got MS-DOS machines with a network drive mounted from a SCO Unix
3.2.2 (actually ODT 1.1) box via PC/TCP's Interdrive software.

The drive was mounted using the default user of "nobody" and no
passowrd. Everything works just fine: DOS users can create and share
files on the mounted drive. The trouble starts when I log in as root
on the server and attempt to change ownership on any of these "DOS"
files.

The files are listed as owner 65534 and group 65534. Ther ARE no such
users or groups (which I don't care about), but any chown or chmod
commands fail with the message "Invaild argument"

	chown root myreport.wp
	error: Invaild Argument

What's up?

-- 
| "Even if God himself parted the clouds and pointed to our side of |
| the field and we won by four million points, all the girls would  |
| STILL go out with the guys from the other camp 'cause they've got |
| all the money!"  -Bill Murray                   <dlucy@sandr.com> |
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sys5.r3,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sysv386
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Re: The Future of ESIX (was Re: PC-clone UNIX Software Buyer's Guide)
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:22:01 GMT

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

>fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:

>>larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>>>Very overpriced considering what you get.  Don't try to fool ANYONE into
>>>thinging SCO is priced fairly.  It's overpriced and based on a product
>>>that's 5 years old (3.2).

>>Lets say the average system has 30 users. The full list of the OS is $1295.

>get real -- add the price of all the options into that 1300.  Now you are
>at a much higher price..

This is where you seem to travel on different wavelength. There are no 
other options. That is the full price. 




>You can take that same 1295 and get an OS which comes with all the options -
>Dos Merge, TCP, NFS, X11R5, Development, etc -- then you have value -- but
>SCO value?  That might be your form of Clintonomics.  Why spend $1295 with
>SCO and get a 5 year old kitchen sink when for the same money you can
>get a new house?

Who the hell needs all that other stuff to run on a single box? What good is 
value if I don't want or need it? I can't take it to the bank and cash it can 
I?

BTW In case you haven't heard. Lots of people by old houses instead of trying 
to fix all the settlement problems and cracks in the new ones. If the market 
were limited to only the newest houses we'd have one hell of a lot of homeless 
people, wouldn't we? 



>>Perhaps if SCO gave their OS away you'd be satisfied as they'd be out of
>>business, right? Is that your goal?

>If SCO packaged their package so that TCP, NFS, Unlimited users, DOS, etc
>all was in the 1300 range -- that would be a major start -- but for those
>suckers who are still laying down hard cash on SCO -- they need to realize
>they are getting something based on an OS 5 years old -- where as with SVR4
>at leased they are in the current mainstream.

Again and again and again - who needs all that? If they do, let them buy it. 
There must be a market there somewhere for such people. For the rest of the 
folks the OS will do just fine, thank you.


Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:37:11 GMT

In article <C1D4wD.5I7@trauma.rn.com> larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>In article <C1BDIs.Evn@trauma.rn.com> larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>>The bottom line is with Dell it truely is plug and play.
>>The only thing really missing from Dell is CDROM support.  Is there
>>a 3rd party add-on if that is needed later?
>Yes, from young minds, and it isn't cheap.

	Yep.  And this is what finally made me drop Dell and go with
	ODT2.0 for chinet.  Needed the CD-ROM mounted reliably.
	SOSS, OS/2 and Novell as CD-ROM servers all left something
	to be desired.  So, installed ODT, grabbed /bin/passwd, /bin/login
	and /usr/bin/passmgmt off an old version of AT&T sysvr3
	and removed /tcb and all the auth nonsense.  I was able to 
	re-compile the over 100 megs of stuff in /usr/local/bin with just
	a few problems With 32 megs of memory on a 486/33, it makes a nice 
	multiuser system.
	With mountable CDROMS yet!

-- 
	I am created Shiva the Destroyer; Death, the shatterer of worlds!
	Who is this dog meat who stands before me now?
	That's the biz, sweetheart.
Randy Suess					 randy@chinet.chi.il.us
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1320 biz.sco.general:5556 comp.unix.sys5.r3:402
From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:35:58 GMT

In <C1BDIs.Evn@trauma.rn.com> larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
>How many folks have we seen complained about having SCO and looking
>for gcc or x11r5 since they don't want to be raked over the coals for
>more products at SCO prices?  How many folks on the net have placed the same ads
>who run dell?

 Well, I guess I kind of complain about SCO's dev.sys pricing.  But then
for us it would be kind of nice, but not a necessity.

 I don't know much about Dell.  I've seen it mentioned here on the net,
but when I tried caling Dell to get prices and such, the sales person didn't
even realize it existed.  He had to go ask someone and call back.

 But for us SCO met our needs, and we couldn't get a clear answer to whether
Dell or another one would run the application we had to run.

 And SCO isn't all bad in my book.  They give one hell of an educational
discount.  We got ODT 2.0 for 60% off, or about $600.

 I'd still like gcc, and the rumor is that there is a libc.a being tested.

 I'm not sure why I would want x11r5.  SCO gives us x11r4, and we've got
x11r4 on our DEC's.  Both of them seem to work nicely.

 If someone could explain why x11r5 is better than x11r4 I'd appreciate it.

Just cause it's newer ain't better.  I own a 1990 Grand Am, and I sure don't
want a 1993 Grand Am, I just don't like the looks of them.
-- 
sheldon@iastate.edu                Steve Sheldon
Project Vincent                    ICSS Resource Unit
SCO ODT, Arc/Info, Atlas GIS       2142 Agronomy Hall
                                   Iowa State University
From: dsiegel@optima.UUCP (Dave Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:05:33 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit

From article <1993Jan26.153926.19840@texhrc.uucp>, by pyeatt@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt):


> |> As DEC was able to build a binary compiler VAX executables to alpha,
> |> same should be possible for a less complex architecture like 386.
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>  Have you actually written assembly code for both the VAX and the
> 8088 family?  The 80486 is not a less complex architecture than the VAX.
> Less powerful? debatable.  Less complex? no.  The 80486 instruction set
> is ridiculous.

He's not talking about VAX architecture, but AXP (Alpha) architecture.  Also
I think that it should be pointed out that the program "VEST" is a >>>VMS<<<
program, that converts >>>VMS<<< executable into (guess) >>>OpenVMS<<< 
executables.

in otherwords, it don't work for unix, and it don't work for DOS.  if you can
get VMS running on a 386, be my guest.

The AXP will also run OSF/1, but the unix programs need to be re-compiled in
order to use them--no two ways about it.


> |> How about jsut to compile your 386-Windows-3.1 excutables into 
> |> R4000-IRIX-X-executables? Impossible? ...would not bet !

> It is definitely possible.  But there are a lot of potential problems.
> You probably would end up with pretty inefficient code.  I guess that
> if you really worked at it, you could do some reasonable optimizations,
> but it wouldn't be easy.

It certainly is possible, but as if different architectures at the hardware
level wasn't bad enough, different Operating Systems makes this even more
challenging.  At least in the case of DEC they designed OpenVMS to be as close
to VMS 5.4 (note:  not VMS 5.5, though it's got some 5.5 stuff in it) as 
possible so the process of writing a binary converter was a little simpler
than it might have otherwise been.

my two cents worth.

-dave

Dave Siegel
Comp Engr, UofA
Unix Systems, BioTec
President, RTD Systems and Networking, Inc.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1302 biz.sco.general:5527 comp.unix.sys5.r3:386
From: kevin@shady.UUCP (Kevin Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:03:18 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Organization: ShadeTree Software, Inc.

In article <2B62C630.3943@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.143653.25862@compu.com>
>	fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>
>>Since I've never purchased an ESIX OS, I don't know what the reseller paid but
>>we are not giving away big secrets here when we say that the ESIX price is
>>pretty darn close to SCO's typical dealer price.
>
>The dealer break on SCO is comparible to that on ESIX and Consensys.
>Univel's dealer discount is *higher* than SCO's.
>
>The VAR discoount for Dell UNIX is a whopping 4% (and you have to commit
>to sales volumes to get it).
>
>Don't know about the others.
>

So...  Larry can either sell 10 systems a day, mark up the unix price 100%,
or sell it for list price and charge, say $500 a day for three days or so
to set it up at the customer.  Or...  Fred can sell SCO for list with setup
included.  Better yet, Fred can sell it for list and charge for setup and
have a nice car and a nice house.  Hmmm...

On another note, this bickering over price is simply not important to a lot
of the people who buy and use these systems.  A customer of mine recently
replaced their ageing NCR Towers with SCO based 486 systems.  The price of
the UNIX was totaly lost in the hardware costs (computers, terminals,
printers...) and licensing and upgrade fees for their applications.  In
fact, it came to about 3%.

Sorry, I just couldn't let this news storm pass with breaking some wind
myself.
-- 
	    | Email - !shady!kevin uunet!shady!kevin kevin%shady@uunet.uu.net
Kevin Smith | Voice - (+1) (908) 874-7980
	    | Mail  - ShadeTree Software, Inc., 192 Capricorn Dr. #10,
	    |         Somerville, NJ  08876, USA
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1398 comp.unix.sys5.misc:116 comp.unix.sys5.r3:464
From: pax@ankh.metrolink.com (Garry M. Paxinos)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.misc,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: gcc,g++ binary distribution wanted
Date: 28 Jan 93 12:36:08 GMT
Organization: Metro Link Incorporated

In article <C12q1z.46s@iem.com> larry@iem.com (Larry Fenske) writes:
   wongm@latcs1.lat.oz.au (M.C. Wong) writes:
   :   I am running SCO SVR3/386 V.4, and I wonder if there is any gcc and g++
   : binary that can be ftp'ed, since the source distribution is too large for
   : me to fit on one high density disk. Or is there any better alternative of
   : getting hold of the compilers ? Email will be mostly appreciated as I
   : seldom read these groups. 
   : 
   : - wongm@latcs1.lat.oz.au

   Please post the response.

Look on ftp.uu.net in vendor/MetroLink, we will be adding libg++ 2.3 shortly.

Pax.
--
Metro Link Incorporated.  2213 W. McNab Rd. Pompano Beach, Florida  33069
Killer X11.5 (133k xstones) and OSF/Motif for SVR3, SVR4.[012], SCO, QNX
  UnixWare, LynxOS, Venix, ISC, Solaris, Pyramid, SunOS
Voice: 305.970.7353x402  Fax: 305.970.7351  Email: pax@ankh.metrolink.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: danson@lgc.com (Doug Anson)
Subject: Re: ESIX net driver for SMC Elite 16T
Organization: LandMark Graphics Corporation LGC
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:34:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.215243.31@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, slj@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (S. Luke Jones) writes:
|> I'm running, or trying to run, a 386 clone with ESIX 4.0.4 on a
|> network most of whose nodes are DOS boxes running Novell Netware. The
|> board in the 386 clone is an SMC Elite 16T, which, according to SMC,
|> uses ESIX's WD8013 driver. Whenever the network is plugged into the
|> board, I get console messages
|> 
|> 	wd8013: bad nxt pkt value: nxtpkt = 000000FF
|> 
|> about 2-3/sec. I think (i.e., my operating hunch is) this is because
|> our Novell client boxes are speaking type II ethernet, which has a
|> src/dst/type instead of src/dst/len fields. I think the wd8013 driver
|> can't handle that, and bellyaches about it on the console.
|> 
|> My question is whether anyone else out there has seen this and/or
|> knows how to get around it. The ESIX tech support folks said they
|> would look into it and get back to me on Friday (29 Jan).
|> 
|> Thanks in advance.
|> -- 
|> S. L u k e Jones  jones@inuxy.att.com  ...!att!inuxy!jones  317-845-6446
|> AT&T Bell Labs // Consumer Communications Services Center  (this week)
|> Room INH 3J-412 // PO Box 1008 // 6612 E 75th St. // Indianapolis IN 46250
|> "I was ECONOMICALLY COERCED into signing away my RIGHTS to these OPINIONS!"

I had the same problem with UHC SVR4 on my 386/33. It turned out for me that
I had to reconfigure my BIOS (via standard setup or at boot), to _NOT_ cache
the area of memory used by the SMC controller card (i.e. D0000-D3fff). After
that, I had no further problems!

Hope this helps,
Doug
-- 
-------------------------------------------
Doug Anson					
Internet: danson@lgc.com			
Phone:	  713.560.1274
FAX:	  713.560.1277
SNAIL:    Landmark Graphics Corporation LGC	
	  15150 Memorial Drive
	  Houston, TX 77079			
-------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:41:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.152657.11295@sbcs.sunysb.edu> shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough) writes:
>Jon LaBadie (jon@jonlab.UUCP) wrote:
>
>The problem with your analogy is that SCO is a *subset* of Dell, while

Certainly not. Dell has no where near the features that SCO has. Think
in terms of support, availability through sales channels, peripheral
support, applications, third party products, user training, sales training,
marketing support, ...... 

In terms of the Unix kernal and commands what you get from SCO and Dell
are overlapping sets. With Dell's features skewing towards the new
features of SVR4 and SCO skewing towards supporting it's existing
customer base.

If you *want* SVR4 buy Dell. If you don't need SVR4 then SCO has a much
better product for most business users.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough)
Subject: Re: On knocking .edu folks (was: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, State U of NY at Stony Brook
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:03:45 GMT

Robert Withrow (witr@rwwa.COM) wrote:

: In article <1993Jan21.222228.19299@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>,
: 
: | Do tell us, Robert, how much did *you* (as a non-.edu domain person)
: | contribute to MIT since you're using X?  How much money did you send
: | the FSF when you installed gcc?  How about when you installed emacs?
: 
: Sorry pal.  Nice try, but you loose.  Perhaps I'm stupid, but I've actually
: *bought* releases from FSF instead of UUCPing them, or I get them from people
: who donate a portion to the FSF.  I buy the printed manuals, instead of
: printing them off myself.  I've bought distibutions from MIT for X,
: including the manuals. I've sent my $100 to the 386BSD folks.  I also *pay*
: for my connectivity to the network...

Not so fast Kemosabe. Do you actually think the price you paid comes
anywhere close to fair market value for what you got? I hope you don't
think that. Sure, you paid what they asked, but let's be honest. Did
you buy one distribution tape of FSF or X code and use it more than
once?

: But thanks for proving my point for me.  It's obvious that the thought
: of paying for something is so foreign to you that you honestly can't 
: believe that anyone would actually do it.

Lighten up, dude. A few less trips to the coffee machine might do you 
some good.

: Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
: R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA

-Shane

--
Shane Bouslough       | #include <stddisc.h>
shane@sbcs.sunysb.edu | "Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1306 biz.sco.general:5532 comp.unix.sys5.r3:390
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: On knocking .edu folks (was: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors)
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:21:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

In article <1993Jan24.224134.24329@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>It's obvious that the thought
>of paying for something is so foreign to you that you honestly can't 
>believe that anyone would actually do it.

maybe it's the thought of commercial exploitation that bugs some of us.

you seem to be the kind of person that would get a 976 number for home.

follow-ups directed to alt.flame.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:51:00 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Originator: news@auspex-gw.Auspex.COM

>Well, all SPARC software except SunOS 4.1.x or earlier and its apps.
>That's not really very much after all, is it?  And since it doesn't come
>with cc anymore, you can't just pull stuff off the net and compile
>without laying out $$.  I imagine someone will start distributing a Sun
>4m architecture Solaris 2.x binary of gcc eventually, but I haven't seen
>it yet.

FYI, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "a Sun 4m architecture
Solaris 2.x binary of gcc"; GCC doesn't, as far as I know give a rat's
ass what the kernel architecture of the machine on which it's executing
is.  (And no, it's not a SPARC V7 vs. SPARC V8 issue; there are Sun-4m
machines that have SPARC V7 chips.)

And yes, there *are* GCC 2.x binaries available for Solaris 2.x.

(Which of the PClone SVR4's come with compilers bundled in?  NOTE: this
is not a rhetorical question.)

There are also probably some applications built for SunOS 4.x that run
under SunOS 5.x; it is probably a fair cop to say, though, that many of
them don't, so that *is* something to take into consideration if you're
looking at a SPARCclassic or SPARCstation LX.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1352 biz.sco.general:5612 comp.unix.sys5.r3:424 comp.unix.sysv386:17919