HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Consensys Powerports
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:38:13 GMT

From: rob@csi.on.ca (Rob McAteer)
>vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:
>
>>My first and most important question is regarding the Powerport boards. The
>>specs are good but I've been reading that they have problems with using the
>>Powerports with Consensys' own SVR4. 
>We run Consensys on a 486 and tried out the Powerport board and it did not
>work (and our sys admin guy IS a wizard 8^).  Consensys could not get it
>to work.
>Also, they would not honour their money back garantee without a LOT of
>phone calls (expensive) and argueing.  I would recommend not using the 
>Powerport board.  We should have known when they asked for a certified
>cheque before sending the hardware to us!!!
>

Thanks to all who replied to my question regarding installing Consensys
Powerports in my Xenix system. The most useful mail I recieved contained a
summary of comments on the Powerports and Consensys in general (one of the
complaints was from me concerning Consensys SVR4). 

The consensus (there, I've used it) seems to be that Consensys is a lousy
company to deal with for support, but aside from the above complaint on an
unspecified Unix on a 486, and another regarding the lack of support for
Powerports on Xenix 286, people seem to agree that the Powerports work well on
a Xenix 386 system. (additional comments in the past have indicated that it
DOESN'T work well on Consensys' own SVR4 port) 

Normally I don't like to purchase items from companies with such a bad
reputation. However, I suppose I should have mentioned that I won't be
purchasing this card from Consensys directly, it's actually used. Considering
the final price will be $400 - $500 for a 16 port board, I'm going to try it
out and if it seems to work out I'll hang on to it. I'd love to splurge and
get the best board but that isn't financially feasible in this case.

What I was really looking for are hidden "Gotchas" and things that I should
look out for. Apparently it's a case of the product first try, or it doesn't
work at all. That's reassuring, though I know I'll be in trouble if the
product fails on me.

In any case I thank all for any comments.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 04:48:35 GMT

In article <Bu6216.8p8@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>In article <9209061131.AA05771@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>>So what exactly have you found out there that will work for Unix that won't
>>work for Xenix?
>
>It's not really an issue of "working" or "not working".  If you have
>the source and are willing to hack on it long enough, you can make
>almost anything work under Xenix.  It's just an issue of how much time
>and effort you're willing to invest.

Of course then again with Xenix or SCO Unix you can often buy the app
you need shrink-wrap, which requires an even smaller time investment for
a $500 app.  The question is How much MORE time.  There are also quite a
few Publicly available sources that run ONLY on Xenix or SCO. (ecu comes
to mind, though someone may have ported it by now).  So the answer is:

If you like to hack net.source a lot buy the os that the guy who is
posting the net.source is running.  SCO people are generally in business
to make money.  This can be a financial problem.
-- 
Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:13:39 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP )
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc. - Easton, MD

In article <1992Sep04.055321.4375@edsi.plexus.COM> gmeiers@edsi.plexus.COM (Garrett Meiers) writes:
>>Not my world. Xenix is fine, especially when I am installing a
>>system were there will only be eight or less terminals, typically
>
>Who said Xenix is limited to 'eight or less' terminals???  The
>Xenix system I'm on now has 13 terminals attached plus the
>console.  3 of those terminals are dial-up.  And we've had them
>all logged in at once...  Unless I'm nuts.  Or in a frantic
>dream...???  

No dream. We have several sites in the 20-25 terminal range under
SCO Xenix running just fine.  We have one site running on an IBC XLA
box (proprietary internals) running SCO Xenix with 55 terminals and
running apps like Informix.  And the system has been very stable.

So there is no 8 terminal limit...  When making a decision it requires
looking at the overall systems, # of terminals, # of active terminals,
# of printers, # of graphics printers, types of applications, typical
mix of applications, and any other considerations just as dial-ins,
faxmodems and the like.

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: davidf@golem.uucp (David J. Fiander)
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:39:34 GMT

According to terry@unx.ucc.okstate.edu (Terry J. Klarich):
>
>I run a xenix 2.3.3 system at home.  I have used mmdf for about 2 years on my
>machine.  I ftped the sources and got it up and running without trouble.  mmdf
>and mh makes for a nice mail system.
>

They certainly do!  This is exactly what I'm running.  I like
MMDF because it is easy to understand and modify the
configuration, and it places less of a load on my tiny machine
than sendmail or smail do.  The biggest advantage the monlithic
mailers have over MMDF is the fact that they take less disk
space.

- David
From: david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Problem with "umount" on SCO-ODT (UNIX v. 5.3.2)
Date: 5 Sep 92 12:16:32 GMT
Organization: SOFTWARE / DYNAMIX
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25772; Sat, 5 Sep 92 09:09:17 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07201; Sat, 5 Sep 92 09:09:15 -0700
X-Received: from dynamix.UUCP by uu3.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)id AA00943; Sat, 5 Sep 92 12:06:31 -0400
X-Received: by dynamix.com (smail2.5c)id AA00648; 5 Sep 92 08:16:33 EDT (Sat)
X-To: raj@cse.iitb.ernet.in (Gokhale Rajendra V),

X-        comp.unix.xenix.sco.usenet (comp.unix.xenix.sco)
X-In-Reply-To: <1992Sep2.202716.9600@cse.iitb.ernet.in>; from "Gokhale Rajendra V" at Sep 2, 92 8:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> We have an 80486 machine running SCO-ODT (UNIX v.5.3.2).  We have two
> hard discs, one containing the root partition while the other (designated
> as /dev/user) is mounted as /usr2.  The problem is that we are unable to
> unmount the latter.  umount complains "/dev/user busy" although the
> file system is not really busy.  This behaviour is observed with
> unfailing regularity.
> As a result, we can never  do a normal shutdown of the machine.
> Can anyone help?

This first thing to check (I know this sounds obvious, but it does happen)
is that nobody is logged in and cd'd to a directory on that filesystem.
The next (not so obvious) thing is to check for processes running which
were created from programs on that filesystem.  WordPerfect's wpexc does
this and creates the situation you describe.

Best Regards,

#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
#          David L. Jarvis                 SOFTWARE  /                 #
#          david@dynamix.com                       /  DYNAMIX          #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley)
Subject: Re: GIF viewer for Xenix
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 21:45:46 GMT

In article <715380840.7509@zooid.guild.org> vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:
>A lot of people are interested in a gif viewer for Xenix that doesn't require
>the CGI kit to be installed. Can someone post it to an appropriate newsgroup,
>with notification here? Not everyone has the kind of access required to grab
>this software.

Tommyrot.

Is it unfair for me to deduce from the existence of your posting that you
have a modem?
If so, you can "uucp sosco!.../... ..."  just as well as anyone else.
So there's no need to consume netbandwidth for the SCO GIF stuff.

Who told you that it needs the CGI kit?
-- 
Jean-Pierre Radley   Unix in NYC   jpr@jpr.com   jpradley!jpr   CIS: 72160,1341
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:37:03 GMT
Organization: CompuData Inc.

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

>>Nope - I've always used smail ... never had a problem with it either
>>(why buy an inferior SCO product when a free on will do?)

>That's not the point.  We could all go run BSD/386 instead of SCO, or
>replace our entire /bin and /usr/bin with the GNU equivalents.
>Sure, you *can* get domain-based e-mail running on a Xenix system, but
>it's an unbelievable amount of trouble to rip out the Xenix e-mail
>system and replace it with your own.

Now wait a minute Marc! Here you are definately wrong, wrong, wrong. We've 
been useing smail and elm and rn news since the early 286 days with Xenix. 
There are several hundred such systems out there some in your own backyard. 
When SCO came out with CUSTOM we quickly took advantage of that and prepared 
an install disk that was all nicely preconfigured, asked a few questions and 
even a user could install the system. I grant you the 286 was a bitch because 
of the segmentation and we probably don't have any left out there but I'm not 
even sure about that. 

But we didn't rip things out, we simply added what was needed so that the site 
would be on our customer support network to receive mail and news. It was no 
biggy.

Fred
-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     'mans feet have grown/so big 
26 Warren St.   home: fred@icdi10.compu.com  that he/forgets his littleness'
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		Don Marquis 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: FAS2.10 and fd problems??
Keywords: fas2.10
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:28:05 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <5969@sixhub.UUCP>, davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
| Has anyone but me seen problems trying to use the floppy disks while
| FAS2.10 is doing a file transfer at high speed? I thought my 3-1/2 drive
| was going bad, but I don't believe that both drives or the FD portions
| of two controllers are all bad.

  After replacing the drives and controller to no avail I replace the
serial card with an identical unit and it works okay. Really bizarre,
but fixed if not solved. Thanks for the mailed suggestions.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: GIF viewer for Xenix
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <1992Sep07.214546.12516@jpradley.jpr.com>
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes:

>In article <715380840.7509@zooid.guild.org> vid@zooid.guild.org
>(David Mason) writes:

>>A lot of people are interested in a gif viewer for Xenix that doesn't require
>>the CGI kit to be installed.
>
>If so, you can "uucp sosco!.../... ..."  just as well as anyone else.
>So there's no need to consume netbandwidth for the SCO GIF stuff.

Well, I just UUCP'd the files from sosco, and they don't work.
None of them work.

Symptoms vary.  Two of the programs give "bad system call", one of
them (wator) collapses the screen to a single line of pixels
(difficult to read!  And I couldn't get the screen back) and another
causes

	%
	Use "logout" to logout

to scroll continuously, and I can't stop it.

So what am I doing wrong?

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.
From: flanagan@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Dick Flanagan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Wanted: streams and TCP/IP
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: flanagan@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Dick Flanagan)
Distribution: na
Originator: flanagan@niagara

I am looking for an inexpensive (non-retail) source of the streams
and TCP/IP add-ons for Xenix 386 2.3.2.  Does anyone have copies
they no longer need and would be willing to sell?  I would like the
respective dev system and toolkits, too, but I have a firm need for
the runtime systems.  Can anyone help?

Dick
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:30:28 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Followup-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <1992Sep10.114323.587@pubnet.com> paul@pubnet.com
(Paul Telles) writes:

>In article <Bu6Bpp.AG8@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
>(Marc Unangst) writes:
>
>>Sure, you *can* get domain-based e-mail running on a Xenix system, but
>>it's an unbelievable amount of trouble to rip out the Xenix e-mail
>>system and replace it with your own.
>
>First of all, you don't 'rip out' the existing SCO mail system...try adding
>a simple line to /usr/lib/mail/mailrc and installing Smail 3.1/Elm 2.3.
>
>The SCO binaries will co-exists peacefully and the original /usr/bin/mail
>will continue to function, so Elm 2.3 is optional.  None of this is
>time consuming or troublesome, assuming *you* are competent.  You have
>consistently exaggerated all points, including this one.

As somebody who is willing to admit inexperience, but sure would
like to have domain addressing anyways,...

From the package size, Smail 3.1 seems like overkill for a small
UUCP site.  Why is it so large?  Smail 2.7 seems from the hype to
fit my needs perfectly, but has been "comming soon" for so many
months that I suspect it'll never actually happen.

What I'd like is something small that speaks UUCP, understands
domain addresses and pathalias.  Smail 2.5 did the job reasonably
well in a previous life, is it still the appropriate choice?

For the record, I did once install Smail 2.5, but the experience
was appropriately described by Paul Telles---"an unbelievable amount
of trouble to rip out the Xenix e-mail system and replace it with
your own."  While not hugely competent, I have installed enough
things to know when something is a pain in the neck.  And it wasn't
Smail 2.5 that was the pain in the neck.

Can somebody send me enough details (not "add a simple line and
install Smail 3.1") to convince me that it's worth trying to replace
the Xenix mailer a second time?

Just to clarify, I'm asking two separate questions...

	- What mailer is appropriate (Smail 2.5, Smail 3.1, something else?)

	- How do you make Xenix understand and use the new mailer.

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
From: apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:14:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.153627.11410@Celestial.COM> bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
>.....
>
>:Your point being?  Or do you feel that I'm unqualified to participate
>:in this discussion, because I'm still in high school?
>
>Hire the teenagers while they still know all the answers! When I
>graduated from high school, I knew it all.  Four years of college
>taught me how little I really know (it took me a lot longer than
>that to learn a little humility :-).
>
Let's not be so hard on Marc.  I certainly disagree with a lot of
what he has to say, and he certainly could tone down the hubris
a bit,  but he seems like a bright kid who probably does have a
lot to offer here.

As those of us over 40 know, age and experience doesn't necessarily
mean you know anything, either.  And, conversely, just because 
someone is young doesn't mean they can't know something.


		Tony

Lawrence & Clark, Inc		(617) 762-0707	(206) 323-2864
Xenix/Unix support,etc 	 	 Boston		 Seattle
From: millia@athena.cs.uga.edu (David W. Millians)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: HELP for a beginner- new machine needed, compiler wanted, etc.
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:05:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep14.030505.2123
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Hope this doesn't cut off the last line- it's been goofy lately.
Hi. I just started a new job recently, where I'm running a special
Xenix-based package by a company called Edulog. I've used Unix 
before, but never maintained the system, so I may have a few questions
about maintaining it- later.
Today, I only have a few rudimentary questions.
1) Is this the main traffic group for SCO-Xenix discussion? What other
groups are there dealing with it?
2) What is the current version of it? I have 2.3.1 on my server.
As I understand it, SCO has moved to making straight Unix, and Xenix
is kind of a lame duck. 
3) My hard drive is too small for the new versions of the software and
I need to upgrade the HD at least, and would like to get a 486/33 or
better. ANy advice? If it is a lame duck, this is VERY important...
I'm considering a Northgate system... 
Or, if I have to get just the HD to stick in my Compaq 386/20e, which
would you recommend that works well with Xenix? Right now I have only
a 100 me g drive in there...
4) I have found no rudimentary C compiler on the server. There is nobody
there who knows anything about the machine, of course. Does it come
with such a thing? Or am I going to have to get a Gnu compiler?

-- 
normally, mild-mannered David W. (Stimpy) Millians, millia@athena.cs.uga.edu 
but now, "Yes, dear"-Man. Able to fix sinks, move boxes and write thank you
From: eoq@vthnw.cvm.msu.edu (Edward Quillen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: XENIX SCO HELP
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:19:20 GMT
Organization: Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Michigan State Univ.

I've just got my hands on a PC running XENIX SCO and I need help badly!

- I need to find some good FTP sites for these systems.

- I need the binary GNU tar program

- I need the binary GNU gcc program with all necessary files

- I need a FAQ if one exists.

All binary files can be sent to me in UUENCODED format.

Thanks alot!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ ED (Edward Quillen)   (517) 336-1293      +++
+++ Vet Teaching Hosp.    System Admin.       +++
+++ Email: quillen@cps.msu.edu                +++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:05:59 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI

In article <9209121040.AA25968@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>If you had problems (as I did with my first attempt), 
>they were no doubt the result of one of two things:  
>1) not reading the included doc thoroughly enough, and 
>2) a lack of experience and knowledge about *nix mailing systems ... 

Maybe they've improved the install instructions lately; I know that
the last time I tried hacking a third-party mailer into SCO Xenix, I
wound up doing a lot of trial-and-error research.  Most of this
research involved replacing various likely-looking programs with a
shell script that did an "echo $*", and then trying to send some mail.
This qualifies as "a lot of trouble" in my book.

And all the experience and knowledge about *nix mailers in the world
won't help you get smail installed on Xenix, because the Xenix mail
system is unlike any other *nix mailer in the world (including the SCO
Unix mail system).  This is yet another instance of my standards
argument.

>Well, when I was looking for our replacement mailer, I was told by various
>folks on the net that smail 2.5 was great for uucp (w/ domain names) using
>a smart host to route your mail ... whereas smail 3.1 was more appropriate
>for tcp/ip and (which would explain it's larger size and complexity) ...

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

-- 
Marc Unangst                | Real men don't use Windows.  Real men use X. 
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   | Only a real man would use a GUI where the
                            | shift keys after "Alt" are "Super" and "Hyper."
From: clayh+@MUDLHEAD.NETWORK.COM (Clayton Haapala)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Mailer replacement for Xenix
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:03:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I had no problem installing smail2.5 on Xenix (yeah, you set execmail in the
mailrc file) but I also installed the replacement execmail supplied by
Chip Salzenberg.  I can't remember if that was included with the smail2.5
distribution or not.

Smail3.1.27 is a large package, I agree, but it does install easily under Xenix.
That's what I'm running now.
-- 
Clayton Haapala	(clayh@network.com)	
Network Systems Corp.			"...and the alligators are on FIRE."
7625 Boone Ave N MS10				-- S.E.K.
Minneapolis, MN 55428-1099
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:54:01 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP )
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc. - Easton, MD

In article <9201.AA04493@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
>in the network version.  My attitude towards Marc was 
>severly hardened by personal correspondence from him sent directly 
>to me.  It appeared (and still appears) to me that he's decided to 
>make a hobby of offering antagonistic critiques of each word I utter 
>on the net.  Thus finally, I responded with my own analysis of his 

>discussion or debate on the idea that Xenix is still a very viable
>operating environment.

In a recent posting, I pointed out that this discussion was deviating
from its original intent.  That is a discussion of the viability of
SCO Xenix operating system.  Marc has helped this discussion get off
track.  Let's all work together to get it back on track and constructive.

We also agree that for many installations SCO Xenix is still more than
adequate and the Best choice.  We support many SCO Xenix sites and
run SCO Xenix internally.  We also do development work inhouse on our
Call Tracker prospecting software.  It works just dandy.

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
Newsgroups: comp.unix.large