HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: NT Under SCO Unix
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:50:43 GMT
Organization: Ahlstrom Filtration - Chattanooga,TN

In article <KETIL.92Oct6215118@ugle.ii.uib.no>, ketil@ugle.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.035259.3640@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
> 
>    I'm a programmer, so the actual graphics capabilities of X are incidental
>    to me.  However -- the real estate represented by a workstation-sized
>    screen is pure gold, IMHO.
> 
> I agree!  But I hardly ever use menus, or file managers or any of
> those things.  Love Xtank, though :-)

Using a file manager on a DOS/Windows based PC is essential, since
DOS's basic command line interface is so weak (e.g. you can't have two
wildcarded arguments to a DEL command, and there is no equivalent to
"rm -rf dir", or even "ls -r" to descend directory trees).

I fooled around with ODT's file manager for a while, and because it
was new, it actually got some mileage.  But, after a while, I realized
that *for me* it just ended up getting in the way.  But, for users
(technical or non-technical) who don't like to type a lot, such
devices have to be an advantage.

My preference is that *there should always be a choice*.

> 
> Now imagine what windows means to a PC user who never even had the ^Z
> oportunity, and ask yourself why he's happy!

My point exactly.  DOS by itself is useless enough that any other
interface has to be an improvement.  E.g. I find the file manager
portion of DOSSHELL (which is included in DOS5.0) to be sufficient for
the times I need to do file manager type things on a PC, so using
Windows apps just for a file manager is overkill.

> The funny thing, IMHO, is that everybody owning a PC is running
> windows.  In 640x400 mode.  GIving you enough space for exactly one
> window, just like a standard 80x25 text terminal.

Yeah!  When people are talking about PC hardware being close in price
to a character terminal they have to be talking about very basic video
hardware.   Heck, a decent video board will cost $100, a decent
monitor $300 (and I should be guessing low here), so there's $400
bucks right there.  We buy character terminals for ~$350.  Even at
those board and monitor prices, you still only have 1024x768 on a 14"
screen, which I've learned from experience is not enough resolution or
real estate to run window apps all the time.

Running graphical window apps really does take more than just $600 or
$700 worth of hardware, and some companies are just not prepared to
put that much money on a desktop without really good reasons (and
*possible* productivity increases isn't going to be one of them).
------------- 
James B. O'Connor                                     jim@tiamat.fsc.com
Information Technology Manager                        voice 615/821-4022 x651
Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.                             fax   615/821-0616
=========
	"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President,
	 should, on no account, be allowed to do the job."
	 Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: Multiple Users for Windows/NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:27:23 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <4879@tivoli.UUCP>, bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter) writes:
|> So are you suggesting that someone can't run a "shell" in a window (not
|> a dos shell) as an app,

You can do that...

|> spawn another shell within that window with a
|> different user id (su or login equivalent),

Not sure about that...

|> and then run other
|> "interactive" programs from that shell with that user id?

I know you can't do that!

|> Does the Win32
|> window "server" not allow this other "interactive" process to create
|> new windows because of a different security ID (no xhost-like mechanism)?

Multiple users on an X server is about as secure as $10,000 in a paper bag on
the sidewalk. NT tries to be secure and therefore does not allow it.

But don't forget that you can do something like xterm. Under X, you can have
an xterm that is owned by the user of the screen and then run a
character-based program *under xterm* which is owned by a different user. The
xterm program provides an interface between a "foreign" application and the X
server.

In the same way, you could write a Win32 program which acted as a server for
foreign applications by creating a named pipe. Processes owned by other users
could access that pipe. So you can run interactive applications owned by
different users but the graphical front end must be owned by the owner of the
screen.

In fact, you could have an "X Server" window, if you really wanted. Multiple
users would only compromise the security of other X server applications, not
Win32 applications.
From: zdxh0a@trc.amoco.com (Douglas Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: PC+DOS Emulator Source Code for UNIX
Keywords: DOS, UNIX, Emulate
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:09:08 GMT
Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research
Originator: zdxh0a@gpss53


In article <BvqD4q.LKD@csn.org>, wrb@teal.csn.org (William R. Bishop) writes:
> 
>   Greetings DOS-doers:
> 
>   I worked on a project for over a year to develop a PC AND DOS emulator 
> under unix.  This was supposed to be our "BIG" break (and it just about broke
> John Stevenson-jks@nomadic.com and I).  We both had a lot to learn about 
> marketing.  A lot of your potential buyers got the shakes when Microsoft 
> announced their effort to bring a DOS emulator to every machine (for free?).
> 
> Please post all responses to comp.unix.dos-under-unix or Email wrb@wrb.com
> 
>   It only emulates an XT (or most of one) and a monochrome display adapter,
> though it was designed to be extended.  The code traps interrupts and executes 
> UNIX code for the DOS interrupts (thus obviating the need for DOS).  
> Many of the important DOS calls have been emulated, but quite a few have not.
> We figured to use the code as a "wrapper" around PC packages, thereby only
> needing to implement the calls that a particular package uses (and what do
> you know, just like most compilers use only a small subset of a machines 
> instructions, most programs use only a small subset of DOS calls).
> 
> It was developed on an SGI 3030, 4D/35, and Indigo so the keyboard and 
> display I/O is tailored to these machines (GL).
> 
> It runs Quicken, most of WordPerfect and Microsoft word as it sits.  The 
> mouse stuff still has a few problems.
> 
>   The code has been sitting on the shelf for a year or so now, waiting for
> its "BIG" break.  I am posting this notice to see how many people would be
> interested in using and improving it.   Also any suggestions on how to 
> support it would be appreciated (like pearl?)
> 
> 
>                 William R. Bishop (Bill) -<wrb@wrb.com>

This is interesting but what is really needed is a DOS and Windows 3.1
emulator that runs under X windows on unix.

-- 
/*  Douglas Horn (zdxh0a@trc.amoco.com)     (918)660-3247             

    Helpful hints:   Stop programming before it is too late.  */
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: PC+DOS Emulator Source Code for UNIX
Keywords: DOS, UNIX, Emulate
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:33:04 GMT

> Many of the important DOS calls have been emulated, but quite a few have not.
> We figured to use the code as a "wrapper" around PC packages, thereby only
> needing to implement the calls that a particular package uses (and what do
> you know, just like most compilers use only a small subset of a machines 
> instructions, most programs use only a small subset of DOS calls).

Well, I'd be interested in a wrapper that *only* emulated DOS calls. We have
some command-line oriented compilers and other tools that run under DOS that
we would like to run under UNIX. We don't have much need for BIOS or hardware
emulation, or even a separate command.com.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: Multiple Users for Windows/NT
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:30:43 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <4879@tivoli.UUCP> bjv@shasta.tivoli.com (Brian Vetter) writes:
>Alistair Banks writes:
>
>|> Both the microkernel and the Win32 subsystem know how to handle multile
>|> users. The piece that won't is the server that managers the screen, being
>|> a part of the Win32 subsystem. So you can have multiple background
>|> tasks with different security IDs, but only one security ID for
>|> interactive processes -- Alistair
>
>Frankly, I don't know what you are getting at.  I'm sitting here at my
>Sparcstation (running SunOs of course) and I can "graphically" create new
>windows and run programs from my window manager - BUT ONLY AS THE USER ID
>I have logged in as.  So Unix/X window managers don't provide such a facility
>either.  

Of course you can. Enter the following:

	xterm -e login&

This will spawn an xterm running the login shell. 

Steve
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:130 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:498 alt.msdos.programmer:2558
From: messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer,alt.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Reading DOS command line options
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:31:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Messina Software

wkamm@acpy01.att.com (William Kamm (CXNIXPT1)) writes:

>Does anyone have a DOS equivalent to the UNIX getopt() function?  This 
>function will return, one at a time, the options and any associated
>arguments entered on the command line when the program was invoked.
>I need this as I am taking a UNIX application and porting it to run
>under DOS also.  I am using Microsoft C 7.0.

How about using argv[] and writing a simple parsing routine getopt() of
your own?  Even with giving it enough universality to last through many
programs, it shouldn't take more than an hour's work.

t.
From: johnk@johnk.wariat.org (John M. Kroehle)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: PC Paintbrush & Canon IX-12 Scanner
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:21:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: John's super computer



I am running a clone 386/33 and ISC Unix V R 3.2 with VP/ix 1.2. I have 
tried many different settings for ddadevice trying to get a Canon Scanner
IX-12 to work with PC Paintbrush IV. I have PC Paintbrush working just 
fine (in EGA mode) but when it try to add the device I run into all kinds
of memory errors. I have noway of mapping VP/ix's memory above the 640k
mark so I end up with romega errors, VP/ix just refusing to load, or
Scanner Initialization Errors.

Does any one have experience with this set up if so how did you make it
work. Pulled the interface board out to change jumpered memory addresses
has become a real pain in the neck.

Thanks in advance.

john
  
-- 
John M. Kroehle                 Internet Adddress: johnk@wariat.org
                    Cleveland Free-Net: at015@cleveland.freenet.edu
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
Xref: sparky comp.unix.dos-under-unix:110 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:1444 comp.unix.questions:12025
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32,comp.unix.questions
Subject: POSIX: what it does, what it doesn't do (was Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:49:49 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>|> Many people have written that the "POSIX under WNT" may be a con, a
>|> way to attract software development under the false promise of source
>|> compatibility with Unix.
>
>You are the first person I have heard say so. MS folk have repeatedly promised
>full POSIX compatibilty.

"Full POSIX compatibility", if that means compatibility with 1003.1 and
1003.2, doesn't come close to "source compatibility with UNIX", nor even
with any very interesting *subset* of UNIX.  Many, many interesting UNIX
utilities won't port, unless the "fully POSIX-compatible" system
provides UNIX API's not in POSIX as well.

For example, will NT provide, in its *IX subsystem:

	sockets? (I suspect so, if WinSock looks reasonably like BSD
	   sockets.)

	various X11 and X11 toolkit API's (NOTE: not necessarily an X11
	   client implementation; it could be something that looks like
	   an X11 client *API*, but that talks to the NT window system
	   instead.)  Maybe, maybe not.

If NT provides XPG4 compliance, as I've heard claims it will, that
probably comes a *lot* closer to something interesting to UNIX
developers.  Of course, I suspect XPG4 isn't a single monolithic lump,
either - you may not have to supply all the bits of XPG4 to be
compliant, just the required bits and the optional bits you choose to
supply.

XPG4 probably has XTI, which is derived from TLI but provides the same
general capabilities as sockets.  XPG3 has the X11 API, although not the
Xt API nor any particular X toolkit, so XPG4 probably has at least that
as well.  Dunno whether NT, if XPG4-compliant, will provide them,
however.

>BTW, you can't be "source compatible" with Unix, because there is really no
>single thing that is "Unix". Without using a standard layer such as POSIX it
>is very difficult to write sophisticated code that will run on different
>versions of Unix. Take a look at the source to xterm! :-)

And then note that pseudo-ttys, for example, aren't covered by any
current POSIX standard, so a "xterm" written only to current POSIX
standards would look like;

	#include <stdio.h>

	int
	main(int argc, char **argv)
	{
		(void) fprintf(stderr, "Sorry, xterm isn't available\n");
		return 2;
	}

(not to mention the fact that X ain't in any POSIX standard, either).
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: Re: POSIX: what it does, what it doesn't do (was Re: NT Under SCO Unix)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 15:57:29 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <14949@auspex-gw.auspex.com> guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>And then note that pseudo-ttys, for example, aren't covered by any
>current POSIX standard, so a "xterm" written only to current POSIX
>standards would look like;

Silly example.  Xterm's pty-handling routines are already littered with
#ifdef's for particular systems; there's no reason to expect it to port
trivially to any random Unix implementation, let alone a system that only
claims conformance with POSIX (I don't know what XPG3 says about ptys).

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: besler@geop.ubc.ca (Steve Besler)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Subject: SoftPC for NeXT
Followup-To: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:42:14 GMT
Organization: Geophysics & Astronomy, U.B.C. Vancouver, Canada
Distribution: world
Reply-To: besler@geop.ubc.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: holo.geop.ubc.ca
Keywords: NeXT, SoftPC


	Can someone please comment on the performance of SoftPC 
for NeXT?  I may purchase it to run on my NeXTstation Turbo.
Anyone done any benchmarks? Like say Norton SI or something?

Steven Besler

flame on.
What on EARTH does "Multiple users in NT" have to do with dos-under-unix
flame off.

PS please post responses to this group.




Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: andreas@andreas.hact.de (Andreas Kesenheimer)
Subject: Re: DOS emulation under Unix. Help
Organization: Halstenbach ACT GmbH
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 06:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.163119.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, stancad@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> I'M currently working under Unix (BDS I think) and I'd like to also run some MS
|> Dos software on it. Is that possible? Any input is valuable. Thanx in advance
|> 
|> Dan Stanca
|> 

Bevore requesting information it's adviceble to know about what question to ask.
Meet your sysadmin, maybe he/she'll know what UNIX and what kind of computer
your question is about...

Andreas

-- 
Disclaimer 
Andreas Kesenheimer
Internet: andreas@hact.hact.de
Newsgroups: comp.unix.dos-under-unix
From: del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg)
Subject: Re: function keys under vpix
Organization: I/Ovations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 09:27:12 GMT

In <1992Oct7.155505.22130@bts.com> phil@bts.com (Phil Eschallier) writes:
>terminal (a vt100 or ansi compatable), i can't run any dos
>applications that require function keys (function keys are not
>recognized).  the terminfo entries are correct ... i can use the
>function keys under curses based unix applications!!

>is there any way i run my dos based applications on ascii terminals --
>particularly my peachtree accounting software ??  function keys are an
>integral part of the user interface.

You need cooperation from your VPIX administrator, and a technical
manual for your terminal.  Modify the initialization string for VPIX to
put the VT100 into "Application Keypad Mode".  Then set up the function
key strings so that the numeric keypad does the function keys.  Program
the PF1 and PF2 keys to act as lead-ins for control and alt (i.e. PF1<3>
would send control-F3).

If you are using a term program under DOS that allows reprogramming the
strings sent by the keys, your task is easier since you can use an
existing definition and modify the term program instead.  I have a
combination terminfo file and key definition file for Telix that will be
released with the FAQ when it gets moved from comp.unix.msdos to
comp.unix.dos-under-unix.

-- 
del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
                          Who is John Galt?
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
From: mazzucch@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (massimo mazzucchi)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: protocols
Keywords: info
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:04:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: ghost.1992Oct15.090419.27175
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University


Hi

i am Max From Italy

i want know information about communication

I work with HP9000 with o.s. UNIX and X-Term
and if you want to connect with bbs or network
i can use ftp/telnet with

numerical address 146.169.11.3

or        address archie.doc.ic.ac.uk


but if i have the telephon number like 9-008-9998878

in which way i can to connect with these bbs or network?

uucp, cu ? are these that i must use but in which way?


Thanks for your help

Max   mazzucch@ghost.dsi.unimi.it
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Freewares FTP servers for UNIX ?
From: cohen@cmu.unige.ch
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:01:49 +0200
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland

Beeing new to Unix, I would like to know if servers for freewares and
utilities/FAQ are available for this OS.
Thanks,
Emmanuel Cohen-Laroque
University of Geneva, Switzerland

Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.sys.sun.misc
From: paul@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Paul Ashton)
Subject: CLB load balancing package posted to alt.sources
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:59:23 GMT

CLB has been posted to alt.sources.  While developed for a Sun network
it should be reasonably easy to port to other networked Unix environments.

A blurb follows:

------------------------- Blurb starts here ---------------------

CLB (Canterbury Load Balancer) is a load balancing system developed for
Sun networks (although it should be readily adaptable to other
networked Unix environments).  CLB is suitable for managing access to 
a set of timeshared machines where:

1. The user doesn't care which machine they end up logged in to, and

2. The goal is to balance workload across the set of timeshared systems.

At Canterbury, for example, we have a group of 4 Suns that act as
compute servers for users logging in from X-terminals and Macs.

CLB is based on user allocation - that is as each user logs in (or starts
up a new login shell), the user session is assigned to the machine that
is currently the "best" (is likely to be most responsive).  Determination
of the best machine is based on the current load on each machine and
the relative power of each machine.  CLB has helped to spread load more
evenly over our compute servers.

In CLB, a "gather" process runs on each machine available for user
login.  Each "gather" process records in a file load and resource use
information for the machine it is running on.  Several programs that
use the information produced by gather are provided: a program that
prints the name of the "best" machine (can be used in user startup
scripts), changes to Xchooser (part of XDM) so that it lists machines
in decreasing order of expected responsiveness, and changes to DNS so
that lookups of some name (say "best") result in information on the
(current) best machine being returned.

Also, CLB is careful not to place users on machines that have little
of some fixed resource (swap space, proc table entries, file table
entries, etc) available.  Situations where the best machine is out
of a fixed resource are logged as they indicate that the machine is
underconfigured in some way.

The "user placement" approach to load-balancing used by CLB is  more
"coarse-grained" than the process placement and process migration
appraoches.  Because of this it is somewhat slower to adapt to changes
in workload.  Nevertheless, it is a simple, low-overhead approach that
should provide good results where user turnover is medium to high
(such as where most users are undergraduate students).
--
----- Paul Ashton ----
Email: paul@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
NZ Post:        Dept of Computer Science, University of Canterbury,
		Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
From: bkc2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Benjamin Clardy)
Subject: Reading Variable Block Tapes
Reply-To: bkc2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:11:53 GMT


Has anyone had any luck reading IBM generated variable block
tapes using dd or some other software.  I tried the unblock option
in dd but it seems to be adding in extra characters.  BTW, this is
on a Sun4, SCSI 9-track drive.

Any commercial software out there?

Thanks

Benjamin


-- 
Benjamin Clardy					bkc2@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.windows.x.apps
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: xwd -> postscript 
Followup-To: comp.windows.x.apps
Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.211618.14578@eng.ufl.edu> iqbal@pawnee.eel.ufl.edu (M.Iqbal) writes:
>Hi,
>
>Does anybody knows how to convert X-window-dump file into 
>postscript?

The pbmplus utilities can handle xwd, and output a PostScript
bitmap.  You might want to get the "xgrab" utility which will perform
X screen dumps directly into Postscript. (with optional compression)
A definite Must Have in any X toolbox.  Find it in:
export.lcs.mit.edu:/contrib/xgrabsc.2_2.tar.Z

(Adding crosspost to comp.windows.x.apps, where this really belongs)

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
  But you don't cure bad art by locking it all up in one museum,
  you cure it by throwing tomatoes at bad artists.  - Barry Shein
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.osf.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.internals