HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcroteau@sobeco.com (r.croteau)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Bug in SVR4.0.3 /usr/include/sys/socket.h
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:50:46 GMT
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

In <C0125H.7sG@encore.com> tma@encore.com (Thanh Ma) writes:

>mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>>There is a closing comment pair ("*/") missing at line 132 of
>>/usr/include/sys/socket.h in Esix 4.0.3.  Could people with newer
>>versions of SVR4 (4.0.4 and maybe even 4.2) check to see if their
>><sys/socket.h> include file suffers from the same problem?  Here is a
>>cdiff to fix the file.  Remember, folks, "gcc -Wall" is your friend...

>Yes. ESIX 4.0.4 has the same problem but at line 131.

	Well, it's also in Consensys V4.0 release 1.3 at line 131.  I checked
if this was in the document/post that details bugs in different SVR4
systems and I did not find it, maybe it should be added.
-- 
Robert-Andre Croteau BSD,MOTU       3575 St-Laurent #132 Montreal, Quebec
Le Groupe MacLawran Inc.            +1 (514) 843-4269
uunet!sobeco!paxmtl!robert
	"Maintenant est le debut de la fin de votre vie"
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.unix.sysv386
From: mea@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Aarnio)
Subject: Re: BSD ftpd doesn't work?
Organization: University of Turku, Computing Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:37:44 GMT

Talking about chroot() affecting ftpd's view of the (file)universe..

larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>rob@icarus.inmos.co.uk (Robin Pickering) writes:
>
>>   2) Use hard mounts for stuff under ~ftp
>
>How do these large anonymous ftp sites support all these files under
>anonymous ftp?

  For this I can tell you only about one system:  ftp.funet.fi
We have a small directory on the root disk:    /ftp,
in it we have a dozen or so physical mountpoints   (/ftp/disk1 .. disk10),
and to hide them from users, we have extremely hacked  "/bin/ls"  which
has separate control files scattered around our directory tree guiding
its view of the world.  (End result: symbolic links disappear, etc..)

  Back then when that system was started, there was no  lofs  to my
recollection (SunOS 4.0.3), and we haven't used it later for any reason.

  Oh yes,  How do we have a LOT of disks on that host ?  With 3 SCSI host
adapters, and lately  OnLine:DiskSuite metadisks.

>I have files on 4 differenet filesystems, I'm open for ideas on how
>to set them all up under /home/ftp/pub.

  Unless you are able to mount them under ~ftp, consider hard-coded NFF-
mounts (a bit like lofs) or real lofs (SunOS system).
(A friend of mine made such NFS-mounts on their company SysV ISC 2.1 -- ages
 ago..)

>-- 
>Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
>keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry

	/Matti Aarnio <mea@utu.fi> <mea@{nic,ftp}.funet.fi>
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:992 comp.unix.misc:4715
From: lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
Subject: UNIX Distribution on CD-ROM
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:25:43 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Organization: Catalogic, Mountain View, California [Voice: 415-961-4649]

In article <Bzn5Cn.5Du@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>Look for someone like SCO or Univel to basically make CD-ROM the standard
>format with tape extra $$ and floppies extra $$ * 2.

Or look at A/UX by Apple, which since the last major release (3.0) is available
*only* on CD-ROM.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sysv386
From: jlitvin@mudder.intel.com (John Litvin)
Subject: SVR4, XFree86 1.1 and the WD90C30 chipset help needed
Organization: Intel Corporation, Multibus Unix Engineering, Hillsboro, OR
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:13:08 GMT

I'm confused.  Will XFree86 1.1 run on my Intel X486/50E (running SVR4
Version 4) with an embedded WD90C30 SVGA chipset?

The Intel-UNIX-X-faq states that the following video hardware is supported:

	ET4000		(Tseng)
	ET3000		(Tseng)
	PVGA1		(Paradise)
	WD90Cxx		(Western Digital - Paradise PVGA1 Supersets)
	GVGA		(Genoa)
	TVGA8900C	(Trident)
	ATI18800,28800	(ATI SVGA - not 8514!)

Well, I have the WD90Cxx chipset, but what does "Paradise PVGA1
Supersets" mean?  When I try to start up the X server, I get the
following error message:

  VGA256 (256 colour SVGA):
	et4000, et3000, pvga1, gvga, ati, tvga8900

	*** None of the configured devices was detected.***

Does my chipset provide the superset of the PVGA1 that is apparently
needed?  Do I need to configure the server somehow to recognize that
my WD90Cxx chipset is compatible with the PVGA1?  Is the WD90C30 an
inferior member of the WD family that doesn't provide the PVGA1
compatibility?

Can anyone help?

Thanks,
John Litvin
jlitvin@speedstr.intel.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170507.2169@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> klaus@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Todd Klaus) writes:
> >:> What is lacking ?

> >:The ability to stick a floppy in a brand new computer, turn it on, and
> >:have it come up running UNIX.

> Try Linux :-)  (tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux)

I did this with 386BSD last night. It's CERTAINLY possible.

Of course the rest of the installation needs a little handholding. :->
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: Files to restore after reinstall
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:28:36 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Dec28.145738.19376@mont.cs.missouri.edu>, usbill@ustores.missouri.edu (Bill Canning) writes:
| I've got an NCR 3445 system that runs SVR4 version 1.03.  I will soon be 
| replacing the machine with a 3450 running SVR4 version 2 (Destiny).  I have
| this machine configured for the network, have set up users, terminals, num-
| erous printers, etc.   I don't want to have to start completely from scratch
| configuring this new machine.
| 
| What I'm looking for is a list of files that are candidates for restoring from
| backups, or that I at least need to pay attention to when installing the new
| machine.  I just don't want to forget anything that is going to haunt me down
| the road.
| 
| Does anyone have any suggestions where I could find such a list?

  Assuming you know when the system was installed, you can do the
following:

  1. unmount all non-root filesystems. Leave /usr/spool mounted if
you're one of the guys who puts it in a separate f/s.
  2. Use find to identify all files modified since the install date.
After an install, before customizing, I always touch a file which I can
use with -newer in find, you may have to identify the load time using
other means.
  3. Go through the list and delete the stuff you don't want to save.

  It's much faster going through a list to delete stuff than identifying
stuff you DO want to save from a list of everything.

  This should give you a start.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Can Sys/V force DTR low or high?
Keywords: DTR
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:32:31 GMT

In article <16070@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> >I've poked around in TFM for several Sys/V releases (both R3 and  R4),
> >and as near as I can tell, there is no (documented) equivalent of this
> >operation in Sys/V.

"stty 0" also works.

> System Administration manual - yup, it's sure obvious to *me* that
> documentation on how a *programmer* controls a device belongs in the
> *system administrator's* manual rather than the *programmer's*
> manual....

ah yes, that's one of the fun things about the "new" manual structure...
in every way inferior to the old sections 1-8.

> Now, this requires that the underlying serial port drivers *implement*
> those "ioctl"s; whether any particular SVR4 driver does, or doesn't, is
> up to its author.  If you find one that doesn't, complain to the vendor.

Like Intel, which not only doesn't support any such ioctls, but it only
raises DTR on open if:

	The process in question is a process group leader,
	and does not have a control terminal already.

i.e., on "first open" for a control terminal. Not only that, but if you
drop DTR with "stty 0" (the alternate) and then raise it again you no
longer have a valid control terminal.

(intel 410 serial card for multibus II)

In addition, they claimed that this was in conformance with the SVID
and if we wanted then to fix it we would have to pay them for the work
on this "enhancement". They agreed that their implementation made NO
SENSE WHATSOEVER, but since it was SVID they didn't have to fix it.

They didn't have to sell any more 410 serial cards, either... and they
didn't. We set up a separate PC for the purpose and Digiboard got our
business. Their PC/8e drivers work just fine.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,connect.audit
From: talleyt@ibmpcug.co.uk (Thomas Talley)
Subject: ttymon replacement?
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Distribution: connect
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:06:31 GMT

In the last month there was a notice about a ttymon replacement
that provided increased capibilities. Unfortunatly, I have
lost this information.

Hopefully someone out there (like the poster of that message) 
could provide me with the information again.

Thanks for your assistance.
-- 
Thomas Talley KA9QPG GO NAVY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: usbill@ustores.missouri.edu (Bill Canning)
Subject: Files to restore after reinstall
Organization: University of Missouri - Columbia
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:57:38 GMT

I've got an NCR 3445 system that runs SVR4 version 1.03.  I will soon be 
replacing the machine with a 3450 running SVR4 version 2 (Destiny).  I have
this machine configured for the network, have set up users, terminals, num-
erous printers, etc.   I don't want to have to start completely from scratch
configuring this new machine.

What I'm looking for is a list of files that are candidates for restoring from
backups, or that I at least need to pay attention to when installing the new
machine.  I just don't want to forget anything that is going to haunt me down
the road.

Does anyone have any suggestions where I could find such a list?

Thanks,
Bill Canning

-- 
Bill Canning                             usbill@ustores.missouri.edu (Internet)
(314) 882-2131                           usbill@muccmail.missouri.edu (cc:Mail)
[314] 882=4699 (Fax)                     CSPECWC@MIZZOU1 (BITNET)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:10:33 GMT

In article scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>In article sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>> I just kind of hate these root directories with 100 different directories
>>within them.  Seems rather unorganized...
>
>It is.  So what.  If the user of that machine likes it, then let them
>suffer through it!

ah, but this brings us back to what i think is the real issue in the DOS/Unix
debate.

it is not (in the unix perspective) "the user", it is "the userS".

the whole concept of multiple people using the same disk at the same time
totally confuses users of DOS.  i see it all the time on DOS LAN's and
with DOS LAN software.  some of these developers don't have a clue.

what idiot thought that wordperfect should default to storing the user's
files in the same directory as the application programs?

i also think that being able to swap disk space into the directory structure is
a much more cool way of dealing with drives than the C:/D:/E:/... method
of DOS.

the problem here is not an issue of forcing people to live in specific area's
of the directory list, but one of uniformity from a maintenance perspective.

all of the issues which the unix admins here take for granted, raised many
flags when we dropped a DOS LAN into the IBM mini/DP area.  they said
where should people put their files?  who controls what?

i let them lay it out themselves (actually they refused my help because i was
"one of those unix guys".

several days later, i critiqued their layout, and laid in a unix-style
hierarchy.

geez, they delayed setting up email for their 100 AS/400 users until they had
full-time admin for the email system.

either the concept/complexity was overblown by the salesperson, or the software
is seriously fucked.  (having seen portions of the software, i side with the
latter)


>> Ok, so I kind of prefer structured directory trees.
>
>Me too.  It's funny how my pee cee at home has a directory structure
>similar to my Unix machine here in the office.

oops, ok, so don't take the above verbiage personally.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sysv386
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Will Dell load off a Wangdat DAT?
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:03:48 GMT

In article <2B35DCC4.64AB@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>
>After all, I don't think that the Dell distribution, even with all its
>bells and whistles, would fill a 1.2GB uncompressed DAT tape. So why
>bother with the compression?

I can't answer why, but I did speak with a Dell representative a few
months back about the DAT distribution and specifically asked which
of their drives would be required to load it.  They said that it
needed the higher capacity drive, so I assume that it is in the
compressed format.   It seems to be really difficult to get information
about the unix products from Dell.  I recently sent some email to
support@dell.com requesting some prices and got a quick notification
that it was being refered to sales, but no follow-up.  Has anyone
had better luck?

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:03:40 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>  My goodness I'm sure as soon as the Apple/Amiga/whatever users find
>that out they'll drop those machine like a rock.

There are probably millions more PCs at home that run DOS than there are
home computers running *all* other OSes.  (And yes, that "millions" is
intended to be taken literally.)

I suspect that without the ability to run DOS and Windows applications,
UNIX would, at best, be a niche player, just as the Amiga is, at least
in the US, as far as I know.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: nlane@well.sf.ca.us (Nathan D. Lane)
Subject: DNS onSVr4 - already did netconfi...
Summary: netconfig has /usr/lib/resolv.so, still doesn't work 
Keywords: DNS ESIX 
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:41:34 GMT

I am attempting to use a name server with Esix Svr4.0.4.  I added the
"/usr/lib/resolv.so" after "/usr/lib/tcpip.so" on the lines in the
/etc/netconfig file that are mentioned in the manuals.  Then, rebooted,
verified operation with nslookup (gets to name server fine), then tried
to ping something that was NOT in /etc/hosts hoping it would go to DNS
to resolv it.  It never appended the domain to the hostname and never
did a lookup.  I also tried telnet and rlogin, all to no avail.  I have
the same problem on an Esix Svr4.0.3 machine with generally the same
configuration.  The name server on one net is an IBM RS/6000 and the
other is a Sparc running SunOS 4.1.1 (with a patched libc for DNS
only resolution).  I saw a problem mentioned when using DNS with
NFS on Sparcs, but that does not seem to be the problem as it is not
even trying to make the query (and I also thought that if tcpip.so
was ahead of resolv.so, it would use /etc/hosts first, so my idea
was to put all of my NFS servers in /etc/hosts - since the NFS servers
are also DNS servers, it seems to be a good approach).

Any ideas?  Has anyone gotten thsi to work?

Thanks in advance.

-Nathan Lane
Trico Title Company, Santa barbara, CA
nlane@well.sf.ca.us
From: grog@lemis.uucp (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:03:14 GMT
Organization: LEMIS, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany

In article <1992Dec23.012729.9837@isc-br.isc-br.com> ricks@odin.isc-br.com (Rick Schaeffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.100028.26428@fasttech.com> zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
>>
>>You can give Unix away for free and you won't penetrate the home PC market
>>until you have
>>
>>	a better dos than dos
>>	a better Windows than Windows
>
>Granted.  I was assuming that Unixware does all of this (as is
>reported).  It's compatibility with dos and windows is supposed to be pretty
>good.

Who reported that? Possibly a Univel marketroid? I've been testing it
recently, and though I agree that it's obviously aimed at DOS users
(there's hardly a mention of UNIX in the complete documentation, but
it does say something to the effect "If you have access to UNIX
documentation, you can also use the shell interface".

The real problem is the relation up there. I haven't used (MS) Windows
in a long time, but I can't imagine that it's worse than what UnixWare
offers. The DOS is DR-DOS 6.0 - is that better or worse than (MS) DOS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Dec22.100028.26428@fasttech.com>, zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

| Ie, you need compatibility with existing applications, or new applications
| that are just as good and don't cost any more per copy. The home PC market
| isn't going to use Unix unless it runs sofware like Excel and Word for Windows
| and Managing Your Money and Prodigy and the hundreds of other apps that people
| have accumulated over the years.

  My goodness I'm sure as soon as the Apple/Amiga/whatever users find
that out they'll drop those machine like a rock.

  If a cheap UNIX with reasonably easy admin came along it would compete
without running DOS applications. But soon, before there are so many
other systems no one can see UNIX.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: slangley@constant.demon.co.uk (Simon A Langley)
Subject: Panics installing ESIX on 386sx
Distribution: world
Organization: Home
Reply-To: slangley@constant.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:05:31 +0000

Until recently I was running ESIX 4.0.3a on a 486/33 without problems.

Unfortunately, my machine died suddenly, so while it is awaiting repair
I got hold of a 386sx/25 m/b with AMI BIOS and I have knocked together
another machine out of spares and the disks from my dead machine.

When I tried to install ESIX I experienced panics (and even double panics)
and clearly had to start again each time.  I have now tried more than ten
times and the machine always panics, but always in a different place.

I have successfully installed MS-DOS, but that is not much use.  After
minor problems with the disc controller not reporting the correct setup
info, I also managed to install Coherent 3.2.

Can anyone suggest how I might go about tracing the cause of this problem?
Is there a known problem with the sx or perhaps the AMI BIOS on slow
machines?

I would also be interested to know if anyone is successfully running
SVR4 on a 386sx with AMI BIOS and 1/2 IDE drives.

TIA.

-- 
   Simon Langley                  (preferred)  slangley@constant.demon.co.uk
   Hampstead
   London                                      slangley@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: shwake@nearside.UUCP (Raymond Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4
Subject: Re: What is lacking in UNIX? (Re: UNIVEL MUST BE KIDDING!!!!!)
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:38:46 GMT
Organization: A/C International

grog@lemis.uucp (Greg Lehey) writes:

>My impression so far (I'm testing this for a review in a German UNIX
>magazine) is that they have tried to make it easy for a novice to
>install. By removing the traditional methods and not documenting their
>new ones properly, they have also ensured that you need to be a novice
>to install it. So far, I would say it is probably the worst
>UNIX installation process I have ever seen.

	My own experience has been far more positive. We first had access
to the Beta version (release 12) in early summer. Got the floppy disk
version, as we don't have a tape drive handy. Installed it on an old NEC
386/25s with slow MFM drive. Installation went at least as smoothly as my
earlier experiences with SCO Xenix/386 and ISC UNIX, and smoother than
ODT 1.0 with its crazy disk sequencing.

	We've since had access to an evaluation copy of the final binary
(sans serious documentation). Still using the floppy disk version. The
initial three-floppy boot sequence *never* took even the thirty minutes
you state, except when we installed on an Austin 486/50 EISA tower with a
2.1 GB disk. Checking *that* disk took a while, as one might imagine, but
required getting current Adaptec ROMs and using Option 0 under fdisk after
saving my configuration (not discussed in the documentation). Also
succeeded in installing on an AST Premium with dual SCSI disks. Without
problem. Even setting up TCP/IP and NFS went fairly easily, once we knew
the "trick" to using our 3COM 3C503-16-TP cards with the 8-bit driver.
(We'll be trying SMC's 16-bit Elite series shortly.)

	With the rather skimpy draft documentation at my disposal, I did
sometimes have to feel my way around, but with nine years UN*X experience
under my belt, it wasn't bad. Still, I hope the commercial releases provide
better, more comprehensive documentation; I also believe firmly that "man"
pages should be provided standard (some vendors will be providing same).

	The current *costs* associated with Destiny/UNIXWARE continue to
pose a problem. Comprehensive packages are expensive from the only two
sources I've yet found distributing SVr4.2 (Consensys and Info Foundations).
I'm not counting Univel, which is even *worse*, since we don't do Netware
here.
-- 

uunet!media!irscscm!nearside!shwake			shwake@rsxtech
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:1068 comp.unix.sysv386:17646