HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: root@candle.uucp (Bruce Momjian)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Floating point emulation
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:25:58 GMT
Organization: a consultant's basement

I am running AT&T 386 Unix SVr3.1, and thought that floating point was
emulated in the kernal.  In running kernal profiling, it seems to be
done in the user process.

Is this correct?
-- 
Bruce Momjian           | 830 Blythe Avenue               | home: (215)853-3000
root%candle.uucp@ls.com | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 | work: (215)353-9879
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sysv386:8497 comp.arch:4925 comp.unix.wizards:2167 comp.benchmarks:701 alt.folklore.computers:6285
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Any known-working 486/50 EISA motherboards around for Dell UNIX?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Apr12.122710.14882@jeck.amherst.nh.us>, coffler@jeck.amherst.nh.us (Jeff Coffler) writes:

|  Any suggestions of known-working 486/50 EISA motherboards around?  The more
|  bus slots, the better; since my current card has 8 slots, I'd like no less
|  than that.  Also, the motherboard should accept at least 32meg of memory
|  onboard (the more, the better) without tying up a bus slot for an extended
|  memory board.

  I would think your first step is get another board from AMI. Everybody
has at least a few boards or parts get funny, you could have one. We
have AIR ISA and EISA 33's, and I believe we have SCO running on a 50
EISA, but haven't tried Dell yet. Maybe soon, but not right now.

  Don't give up on AMI until you are sure there's a design problem.
Also, have you played with the bus and memory things in the setup? I had
some problems until I cranked everything to full fast, 0 w/s, fast cache
everything, fast bus (ISA), etc.
-- 
	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: The cost of free software 
Summary: cheap shot
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:19:11 GMT

fangchin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang) writes:
>I don't have SYR4 (too broke :( ...

ummm...shouldn't that be "broken"?  But yeah, I agree it's too broken;
that's one of the reasons I don't have SVR4 either.

;-)
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: SVr4 and clone hardware buyer's FAQ
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:36:38 GMT

In article <5986@email.sp.unisys.com> paulr@email.sp.unisys.com (Paul Raulerson) writes:
>there is little comparison
>betwen a 80586 and a SPARC

One exists, the other doesn't.  I call that a huge difference.

>SunOS is probably the best supported UNIX variant in the world. 

Considering that even SunOS is xenix compatible, I suspect that Xenix is the
'best supported' (although that is an ambiguous phrase).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "One form to rule them all, one form to find them, one
sef@kithrup.COM  |  form to bring them all and in the darkness rewrite the
-----------------+  hell out of them" -- sendmail ruleset 3 comment from DEC.
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: Shared-interrupt COM board for FAS
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:00:35 GMT

Scott Weikart <scott@igc.org> writes:

>AST's 4-port board lists at $500.

Wow!  (I think the AST 4-port is discontinued).  If you look around,
you may be able to find a vendor with an AST 4-port for around $100.
I paid $100 or so for my first one, and bought a spare for $65 at
a trade show!

-bill
-- 
bill@unixland.natick.ma.us   ...!uunet!{think,world}!unixland!bill
Public Access UNIX / USENET / E-MAIL Accounts are available! (508) 655-3848
5 lines  -  Located in Natick, MA   USA    Supporting V.32/PEP/V.42bis, etc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: lenz@ssd.comm.mot.com (Doug Lenz)
Subject: Help running X11R5
Organization: Motorola LMPS
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:33:13 GMT

I just finished building X11R5 under Interactive SVR3 Ver 3.0.  I built
with both -DLOCALCONN and -DTCPCONN but can't seem to get the server to
accept connections.  I know I've seen this before on the net (I checked
the X386 FAQ to no avail) and am hoping someone could give me a clue to
what to do next.  The output I get from starting the server is:

X386 Version 1.2 / X Windows System
(protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 5000)

VGA256: et4000 (mem: 1024k clocks: 25 28 32 36 40 45 50 65)

waiting for X server to begin accepting connections .
..
.
giving up.
xinit:  Interrupted system call (errno 4):  unable to connect to X server
xinit:  No such process (errno 3):  Server error.

I've tried just about every combination of DISPLAY= in my environment and I
still can't get the thing to work.  I would appreciate ANY help ANYONE could
give me!  Please either post here or respond via e-mail to me.

Thanks in advance....

Doug Lenz

-- 
=============================================================
| Douglas Lenz   |   Friends don't let friends use MS-DOS   |
-------------------------------------------------------------
|           internet :   lenz@ssd.comm.mot.com              |
=============================================================
From: bruno@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Bruno Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Sugestions on a good/fast X11R* video card
Date: 12 Apr 92 07:14:27 GMT
Organization: McGill University, McRCIM

In article <HCOBB.92Apr11135352@fly1.berkeley.edu> hcobb@fly1.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb) writes:
>
>	Try the Ati 8514a along with a cheap VGA card.  Text is very fast
>with Dell's driver.

OK, but you need a monitor which can handle 8514/A output, too.
-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bruno Hall  |  VE2HUM  |  bruno@mcrcim.mcgill.edu         
McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines - Controls Group
New systems generate new problems -- Join the Flat Earth Society.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: 1542 and 1740 speed
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:06:36 GMT

dag@atomica.fi (Dag Nygren) writes:
 larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>...most of them run the 1742 in the 1540 emulation mode
>>(which I've been told is slightly slower than a real 1542)

>NOT TRUE. The 1740 in emulation mode is 1.5-2.0 times FASTER than
>any 1540 or 1542!

I don't understand--how do you get 1.5-2.0 times faster than the 1542 on
the ISA bus?  Seems to me the 1542 takes up about all the bandwidth it
can get.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
From: pjw@wacher.oz.au (Peter Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Wanted: SCO ODT VGA Screen Driver for OAK 067
Date: 17 Apr 92 08:28:34 GMT
Organization: Wachers Pty Ltd



G'Day,

    Help! :  I require a screen driver for the OAK 067 super VGA card for
SCO ODT 1.1 or a compiled X11R4 or R5 server that supports the OAK 067 
under SCO Unix.

Thanks in advance.

Peter.
-- 
 ,-_|\      Peter Williams                    || "To know me is to love me" ||
/     \     Wachers Pty. Ltd.                 ||  E-Mail: pjw@wacher.oz.au  ||
\_,-._/<--- 2 Humphries Ln.                   ||   Phone: +61 2 570 3255    ||
     v      Hurstville, NSW, 2220, Australia  ||     Fax: +61 2 570 9247    ||
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Interactive and the 486
From: andyb@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Andy Brager)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:29:16 GMT
Organization: Wonder Server - Public Access for SoCal
Keywords: Interactive 486 DX SX EISA ISA

cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:

>>1. EISA not ISA

>I tend to disagree with this if the system is meant for single-user workstation
>environments.  I have two systems (one EISA and one ISA) that are not different
>enough with respect to performance to get me to work on one vs the other.
>The two systems are configured as follows:

>	1) 486/ISA w/16 MB of memory
>	   DPT Cacheing ESDI controller
>	   676 MB ESDI drive
>	   Artist Graphics XJS display (TI34020 based)

>	2) 486/EISA with 32MB of memory
>	   Bustek 742 EISA controller
>	   3 1.0 GB SCSI drives
>	   no-name monochrome display (this is the office server)

>Machine 1 is the workstation on my desk and with a full compile of a DBMS 
>kernel running and X up and running (with mwm and about 12-15 windows active)
>I still have about 4MB of the 16MB available AND I can still use the system
>for other things with excellent performance (until I get to the point that
>the DBMS build is generating 1.8MB executables which ends up tieing up alot
>of the i/o bandwith and the kernel buffer cache).

>The timing difference between the two systems for the DBMS compile is about
>ten percent (23 mins vs 25-26 mins).

>So, I guess what I am saying is that unless you are going to throw lots of
>people onto the system, or you think you need more than 16MB, EISA is not
>necessary.  

While in general I agree with what you're saying, I think you're ignoring
the fact that ESDI controllers are faster than SCSI (as far as I know).
Therefore, you're making somewhat of an oranges to tangerines comparison.
You're not strictly measuring EISA vs ISA.

On the other hand, today I'm running: 

386/40 ISA w/8MB memory
Adaptec 1542B ISA SCSI controller
1.5GB drive
Orchid Prodesigner II w/1MB
Archive Python DAT drive.

Last month I was running:

486/33 EISA w/32MB memory
Adaptec 1740 EISA SCSI controller
1.5GB drive
Orchid Prodesigner II w/1MB
Archive Python DAT drive.

Full backups used to take 1 hour.  They currently take 3.5.  Granted
I now have more data to backup than I did last month but not more
than a couple of hundred extra Meg :)

Draw your own conclusions.

Andy

-- 
		DO NOT BUY TOUCHE COMPUTERS -email for details
Large Packages (2K+ Total): cerritos.edu!swc!wndrsvr!andyb
Did you know that VAX mailers strip trailing blanks?  Don't use uuencode.
-I don't know but I been told; two sides to every story - Joe Walsh
Xref: sparky comp.unix.sysv386:8543 comp.dcom.modems:6606
From: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Prerelease of ECU 3.20 available for ftp
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:19:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: n4hgf.547
Followup-To: comp.unix.sysv386
Organization: TuckerWare/Amateur Radio Station N4HGF

wht@tridom.com (Warren H. Tucker) writes:
: For the next few days, there will be a prerelease of ECU 3.20
: available for ftp as ftp.uu.net/ecu31833.tar.Z.

This should have been ftp.uu.net:/tmp/ecu31833.tar.Z
There have been some updates since the original version was placed there.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Tucker, Tuckerware                  n4hgf!wht/wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US
A remote debugging human who appreciates Howard Rourke, Leonard Cohen and PI
From: jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (J. Brian Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Shared-interrupt COM board for FAS
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:31:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1352
Organization: The Binary Bin

In article <1992Apr8.220035.7097@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>Scott Weikart <scott@igc.org> writes:
>
>>AST's 4-port board lists at $500.
>
>Wow!  (I think the AST 4-port is discontinued).  If you look around,
>you may be able to find a vendor with an AST 4-port for around $100.

An Altex catalog recently recieved shows a 4-Port board that is hardware compat.
with an AST four port XN board for $75, it also shows a Multi-user board that
says it is also AST 4-port compatible for $139...  their number is 800-531-5369.

All I know about the boards is what is in the catalog, though I am thinking of
buying one for a Unix system I am trying to assemble.


-- 
Brian Waters   			jbwaters@bsu-cs.bsu.edu           
				<backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: kentkar@polari.com
Subject: Re: Interactive and the 486	
Keywords: Interactive 486 DX SX EISA ISA	
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.162727.5073@cs.wayne.edu> pbh@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Patrick Haggood) writes:
> {lots of stuff deleted}
>a device.  Are there any Interactive users who running on 486 boxes?
>Did you get EISA or ISA?  Which is better?  If you're runing X windows,
>what kind of video card do you use?  What's the difference between DX 
>and SX?  What's this DX2?  Any C++ or COOL users out there?  If you
>ported these yourself, any outstanding headaches?

I am running ISC 3.3 with X and Motif on a 486-33 with 256K cache, 16MB
memory, and a SCSI 380 hoard disk. Until recently I was running all this
on a 386-25 with 8MB memory. In comparison, the 486 screams!!! It is ISA
bus (all that I could afford at the time). I am using a Diamond SpeedStar
Plus with 1MB video card with a ViewSonic 4E 14" monitor. Running X is a
little inconvenient on a 14" monitor. 17" would be better. Also, the 486
chip runs much hotter than my 386 chip. I have felt it necessary to add an
extra fan to my server box. As far as performance, the only time I have seen
any slow down is when doing heavy I/O to disk. But I expected that. As far
as headaches, I'm not sure about ISC's X development systems. I have not
yet been successful at compiling new X contrib stuff from the net. But this
may be I ignorance.

Hope this helps.
-- 
[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
[ My thought is in control of my experience and I can direct my thinking. ]
[                          kentkar@polari.com         -- Ernest Holmes -- ]
[________________ UUCP: uunet!polari!kentkar (Kent Karrer) _______________]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
From: richard@octel.com (Richard Karasik)
Subject: Interactive Bugs
Organization: Octel Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:07:04 GMT

I have Interactive Unix 3.2 ....
  Just recently my find command developed a "bug"
  I would type find, and I would get the following

cat cant open "Segmentation"
cat cant open "Violation"
cat cant open "Error"

--OH Joy -- However as SU root, find works fine.
Same thing with man.  Anybody have the faintest idea wih is going on here ...
Richard
-- 
|UUCP  richard@octel.com                 VOICE (HEY YOU!) or 408 942 6372
| 
|             Speaker for the dead - among them:
|                 Liberty, Justice, Freedom
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Univel: USL and Novell SVR4 product - info
Keywords: unix novell svr4 univel
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:59:08 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation

In article <1992Apr15.214429.28213@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>kbahey@ncrsaud.SaudiArabia.NCR.COM (Khalid Bahey-elDin) writes:
>
>>3. How will it be different from todays SVR4? Will it be a better/crippled
>>   version of SVR4? Will the kernel still be big as today's SVR4?
>
>The wording "streamlined" scares me.  I wonder what will be missing.

Run "kconfig" and look at all the, ah, things which are configured into
your kernel.  Now *that's* scary!

Sure wish I knew what some of them did... and which of them depended on
one of the others.  I've yet to find this in TFM...

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Memory Cache and Unix
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:25:40 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Apr8.215640.17308@crd.ge.com> davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E
Davidsen) writes: 

>  Rick Farris has already handled the technical end of responding to
>this, let me just hit the practical end. On a 486-33 I can disable the
>256k main cache, or main and on chip cache. With main memory running
>burst mode and interleave, using a LARGE make (realtime >1000 sec, cpu
>>500 sec) I see about 20-25% increase in cpu time with external cache
>off, about 90% increase with the on chip cache off. Even the little 8k
>cache boosts performance by almost 2:1!
>  I have seen similar results running loaded and unloaded, on 486-33 and
>386-16 (64k cache), and with SCO Xenix, SCO UNIX, and Dell V.4. All the
>theory in the world is fine, but in practive cache makes the system run
>faster. That's not a dig against theory, but practice pays the bills.

But the theory supports the practical stuff. What you have stated above can
be explained by theory. The entire cache memory is not used when doing cache
pre-reads...it is limited to line sizes or segments. Also, a small cache
dramatically increases performance, but the larger a cache size gets, the
smaller the perormance boost. This is because of search delays, comparison
delays and tag checks increasing as the cache size increases.
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(415)-226-2100 X3737
I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of
people waiting to abuse me.
From: jj00@eurotherm.co.uk (John Juer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Duplicating displays
Summary: Duplicating displays
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:36:08 GMT
Distribution: comp.unix.sysv386
Organization: Eurotherm Limited

Does anyone know of a way of duplicating a keyboard, mouse, screen
combination? i.e have two keyboards, mice, screens attached to one
computer with all the screen, keyboard and mouse io multiplexed.

--
jj00@eurotherm.co.uk
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SVr4 and clone hardware buyer's FAQ
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:53:14 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Apr10.233313.16535@unixland.natick.ma.us>, bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
|  peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|  
|  >If Joe Executive has been charged with the duty, and doesn't have the
|  >resources to specify the system properly, he's probably better off with
|  >SCO than SVR4 anyway. I'd say he got off lucky... he could have ended
|  >up buying Solaris.
|  
|  Why do you think he'd be better off buying $CO than Solaris?

  That one's easy, documentation. Almost every comparison of UNIX
versions, regardless of how well the software was rated, seems to rate
SCO docs as the best. And all the naive users I've seen try to install
UNIX from manuals seem to have very good luck with SCO.

  As much as I like Dell, their documentation (from the 1st release) is
minimal. Even with the whole set of V.4 docs and two aftermarket V.4
admin manuals, I find myself dropping Larry a note from time to time. I
generally have no trouble with SCO, even UNIX.
-- 
	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
From: tim@sabus.UUCP (Tim Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Slip/ISC2.2.1
Summary: Setup tips for slip and ISC2.2.1
Keywords: slip
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:18:10 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: The SABUS Group

Can anyone provide me with detailed step by step instructions on how
to setup slip on a 486 running isc2.2.1?  I have tried following the
manual but the machine just crashes.  Before I start debugging isc's
stuff again and waste tons of time I thought I would ask.

Thanks.

tim%sabus@uunet.uu.net

-- 
Tim Brown
The SABUS Group
2091 Cliffside Dr.		Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907)277-4232			tim%sabus@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.windows.x
From: brad@bradley.bradley.edu (Bradley E. Smith)
Subject: Re: my fragile X386 server
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 03:37:00 GMT

notes: I use same hardward/sofware execpt I have a BOCA Super VGA
       card.

       I also don't see any problems on the binary speedup ( I haven't
       compiled it yet, but plan on it)

       I see the problems with both generic X11R5 and with the first
       speed up posted (the generic one).

       I see the X server dieing and also the exit problem but not the
-- 
Bradley Smith			 brad@bradley.edu ---  309-677-2337
Network & Technical Services @ Bradley University, Peoria, IL

"It's amazing how much scrap metal you get from 4 cans of beer"
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: C-kermit for SCO (source or binary)
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:20:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: Celestia.1992Apr14.162022.11298
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

In <1992Apr14.033230.4464@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

:In article <1992Apr14.010144.3668@news.rn.com> larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
:>SCO unix or xenix?  286/386/8086 (yes, SCO did do a 80286/286 release
:>of Xenix --

:Uhm... it's more accurate to say SCO also did a '386 release of xenix.
:Xenix was written for the 8086, ported to the '286, and later reported to
:the '386.

If you want to be really accurate, Xenix was written for the
Tandy 16 with a Motorola MC68000 in 1982!  It may have been
available on other 68K platforms (Altos comes to mind) around the
same time.  It's really too bad the Intex 80x86 hardware virus
was perpetrated on the world!

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.sysv386
From: davidsen@yeti.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Help!!! set up for Unix ODT for 2 disks
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:07:31 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1992Apr01.180056.135735@zeus.calpoly.edu>, dragon@zeus.calpoly.edu (Long Nguyen) writes:
|  Hello everyone,
|  I have 386 ESDI Ultrastor Disk Controller with 2 hard drives (70MB each)
|  - first disk was installed Unix ODT 1.1
|  - second disk is empty.
|  Now I would like to install for the rest of Unix for the second disk.
|  How can I let Unix odt recoginze the second one?
|  If someone have any idea or suggestion, I would appreciate and

Traditionally "mkdev hd" is used, as explained in the manual.
-- 
	- bill davidsen (davidsen@crd.ge.com)
	GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
From: larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SLIP for ISC 2.0.2
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:18:16 GMT
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site (219)289-0777

luis@lsimages.uucp (Luis Lopes) writes:


>Some time ago (2-3 years ago??) someone posted the sources of SLIP
>for ISC 2.0.2.

SLIP is shipping with ISC (I believe 2.2 and 3.0) we used it -- it works

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the 'gator                                uucp: uunet!trauma!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,ca.unixi,biz.sco.general
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Vertical developer seeks consultant near San Diego
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:03:55 GMT

This is being posted for someone who does not have net access.

A developer of a specific vertical package requires a consultant in the
La Jolla/San Diego area with a good knowledge of 386 UNIX platforms
(he's most comfortable with Xenix, but I have his stuff working fine on
an R4 platform).

If interested, call Chris at 615-292-8217. Tell him who sent you.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?