Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!spool.mu.edu!vms.csd.mu.edu!5916RAHMANK
From: 5916rahm...@vms.csd.mu.edu (K. M. A. Rahman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: UNIX on a PC clone
Date: 22 Sep 1992 18:57:43 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Reply-To: 5916rahm...@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsf.csd.mu.edu

Hello everybody,
	Am I the first one to post on this group? If you're reading
	please reply.

	I'd like to install a 'small' unix (or some version of it) on
	my pc-clone.32bit. Can some body recommend me a low-cost
	package?

	Thank you. Anis.

Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!usc!usc!not-for-mail
From: ajays...@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone)
Date: 22 Sep 1992 12:56:17 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 323
Message-ID: <19ntp1INN2qo@almaak.usc.edu>
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

This file is a attempt at a quick summary of the Unix options for
386 boxes.  It is not monolithic or complete; it's supposed to be
a quick first look at the field.  It is not a objective, factual
summary; instead it reflects our biases and experiences.

        - Ajay Shah (ajays...@usc.edu)
          Shuvam Misra (shu...@jogin.cse.iitb.ernet.in)

Commercial
----------

Unixes:
        BSD386 (by BSDI)
        Coherent
        Destiny (RSN)
        Minix
        Nextstep 486 (RSN)
        SCO Unix
        Solaris 2.0 (RSN)
        a few dozen SVR4 implementations
        a few (commercial) Mach-BSD implementations

Compatibility products:
        Desqview/X
        many X display servers running on 386
        many TCP/IP and NFS products

Free
----

Unixes:
        386-BSD
        Hurd
        Linux
        Mach-BSD

Compatibility products:
        PC-TCP
        SOSS (NFS server which takes over a PC)
        Clarkson packet drivers
        NCSA telnet/ftp



Now for a little more info for some of the above.

BSD-386 (by BSDI)
-----------------

This is a finished, commercial BSD 4.3.  It's $1000 including The
Source.  There are no conditions attached for the source.  The NFS
implementation is from an earlier PD project, don't remember which.

Coherent
--------

This is a 32-bit Unixy OS.  It runs COFF binaries which run on other
386 Unixes.  The distribution set is 6 floppies and takes <10M disk.
Kernel is 100k.  There exists a C compiler, linker, lex, yacc, awk,
make, termcap, terminfo, curses, assembler.  nroff, troff, uucp,
ckermit, ksh, sh, cron, virtual consoles, man pages.  

gcc, emacs, etc. are available by ftp (from where?)
Networking is in the works.

$100.  Mark Williams Co, 60 Revere Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062
708-291-6700

Destiny
-------

This is a SVR4.2 implementation by Univel, a company born of USL and
Novell.  It's very slick -- e.g., it boots into a GUI.

It runs DOS/Windoze binaries.  You can readily ignore the fact that
it's a Unix, and merely use it as a DOS/Windows "multitasker", a job
which it does rather well (obviously better than Windoze).

It's unbundled; there is a base package, then you can buy networking
and/or software development. You can configure it to be either Open
Look or Motif.  It knows Novell protocols.

It's parsimonious on disk/RAM -- like 60M and 4M.

Not shipping yet.  Pricing is unknown, but it's likely to be cheap.
Many clone vendors will offer to ship PCs with Destiny preinstalled.
Needs a newsgroup real soon.

Minix
-----

A small Unixalike by Andy Tanenbaum.  $150 or so buys you The Source.
There is a newsgroup comp.os.minix.

This is _NOT_ Unix. It has Unix-like commands. Its file system is not
Unix-like, its kernel is different. Its main attraction is that its
source is available in Tanenbaum's book, it is study-able in class,
and it is small enough to run on a plain-vanilla PC or XT (yes, no
virtual memory).  It has no TCP/IP, and is too small for serious large
applications, primarily because it supports no virtual memory.

Nextstep 486
------------

The NeXT OS for a 486.  It is BSD on top of Mach, with a pretty
(nonstandard) GUI to boot.  The GUI uses display postscript.
Presumably the entire software base for NeXT will quickly recompile
for NS486.

Not yet shipping. Probably needs a special graphics card.  Probably
expensive.

SCO Unix
--------

!@#$%^&~

It is a peculiar hash of brain-damaged Xenix, MS-DOG and Unix.  For
example, for a debugger, it stoops to Microsoft Codeview.  Too many of
its sysadm features and system daemons have been "customised", or
"optimised" for it to really feel comfortable for old-time Unix users.
It is neither very close to BSD, nor to AT&T (of the two, it's closer
to V.2).  Compiling PD software, even well-written GNU software, to it
often becomes a porting nightmare.  A special problem area is
networking.  It doesn't even have long filenames. It has a nonstandard
GUI, called ODT (Open Desktop) which is not X, though it must have
borrowed things from X.  A plus point: It runs some popular software,
e.g. Foxpro. (dunno how well that will work out now).

It is fast. A simple program on SCO runs faster than on Interactive
i386 (don't recall versions here).  In return, it does not scale well
to large numbers of users. Its performance for one user is very good,
but falls below the competition if say, 20 users are running.

If the above didn't convince you to keep away, consider this: the
Prince of Darkness owns a major stake in SCO.  :-)

Solaris 2.0
-----------

A 100% clone of Solaris 2.0 for the 386.  Needs CD-ROM, SCSI disks,
200M and 8M.  Does MP on compliant hardware.  A SVR4.  100% source
compatible with SPARC Solaris 2.0.  Presumably the entire applications
software base for SPARC hardware will quickly recompile for it, giving
it a unique position among 386 Unix options.

Many clone vendors will offer to ship PCs with Solaris 2.0 preinstalled.

Will it allow the concept of tftp diskless floppy-booting clients?

Not shipping yet.

Many SVR4 implementations
-------------------------

There are a dozen other companies doing SVR4s for the 386.
See Eric Raymond's book-length posting to get the dope.

(Commercial) Mach-BSD
---------------------

This has got to exist :-)  Could you write a paragraph on this?

Desqview-X
----------

This package runs on the PC.  It is a X display server.  It runs all
DOS and Windows programs by virtue of device drivers which convert
Windows calls into X calls.  Hence you can (e.g.) run a Windows binary
on a 386 controlled by dv/X and do display on any X terminal on the
network.

For the rest it's a great DOS/Windows "multi-tasker", far better than
Windows for sure.  This is a great option if you must have strong
DOS/Windows roots.

How well does it mix with a NFS?
Price?
Phone numbers?

X display servers for the PC
----------------------------

There are more than a dozen companies offering these.
Some run under Windoze (and are hence slow), others take over the
PC completely.

Could you contribute a paragraph here?

TCP/IP and NFS products
-----------------------

These products make a PC a good citizen of a Unix network.
You need a TCP/IP to do the low-level shipping.  A NFS product
will let your PC see Unix disks as G:, H:, etc.

Sun ships PC-NFS.  Beame and Whiteside (1-416-648-6556) has a good
product too, as does FTP software.  There are many others.

Typically the NFS product comes with TCP/IP and utilities like telnet
and ftp.  

But it is possible that standalone non-NFS packages i.e those which give
you only telnet and ftp, but no NFS, give you much better telnet and ftp
than those which come with the NFS packages. NCSA Telnet 2.3 is very neat,
comes with source, and is in the public domain. And it is many _times_ as
fast as the telnet program which comes with BWNFS, which costs money.

The problem is that you can't use, say, BWNFS and NCSA Telnet together from
the same PC easily. This is because BWNFS implements the TCP/IP protocol
stack using memory-resident programs which don't let NCSA Telnet function.
So you remove BWNFS first, typically by rebooting the PC. This also means
that using NCSA FTP to transfer files from a Unix system to a PC's NFS disk
is not possible, because BWNFS and NCSA FTP don't run together. So, if you
need BWNFS, you are stuck with their atrociously slow utilities.

Free 386-BSD
------------

This is a free BSD for the 386.  It does NFS and X.
Grab it from agate.berkeley.edu.  Bill Jolitz is writing a book on it.

It has a neat, small kernel, and is stable enough to run for a week or
more without crashing/hanging. It works fine with 4MB RAM and 80MB
disk.  Running X however needs 8MB RAM, and supports only vanilla VGA.
The TCP/IP implementation in this is functional, but not optimised.
This means that FTP throughput is about 5KB/sec on Ethernet, when
almost anything else gives you about 70KB to 100KB per second.

Read comp.unix.bsd. That is almost entirely Jolitz's 386BSD now.

Hurd
----

Someday, this will be the operating system produced by the free
software foundation.  It may be BSD-compatible.  It is being built on
top of Mach 3.0 as supplied by CMU.  Refer Mach-BSD below.

Linux
-----

This is a complete Unix (with X, but no networking).  Grab it from
tsx-11.mit.edu.  Read comp.os.linux. It is characterised by a very
high level of interest, hacker participation and lots of non-hacker
users.  Minimum system is 2M,10M and it will coexist with DOS on a
hard disk.

It has short filenames, virtual consoles, atmost 64M/partition, a
pretty logo.  Virtually all important PD software is available as
binaries up for ftp, including emacs, gcc, TeX, kermit, etc.

It is one of the best options if you want to quickly get a working
free Unix system right now.  Some prefer 386-BSD, and if you have
a AT&T source license, then check Mach 3.0 from CMU.

Hats off to Linus Torvalds!

Mach-BSD
--------

CMU supplies you source and binaries of Mach 2.5 and Mach 3.0 (the
current version). This is a fast, clean OS which has an API and
shell-level interface which is exactly compatible, 100%, with BSD4.3.
(CMU had started with BSD4.3 source). A lot of users in the univ world
have been using Mach 3.0 on PCs. Read comp.os.mach.  It gives you a
CThread API which allows you to write programs whose parts execute in
parallel, somewhat like what OS/2 tried to provide. CThreads in Mach
are kernel-supported, schedulable entities. Other features include
user-level code to implement network- transparent shared memory.

Catch: you must have source licenses for AT&T and BSD.

Note about licensing: CMU demands that you have AT&T and BSD source
license because they have themselves derived their code from BSD
source. But in Mach 3.0, they have separated Mach into a micro-kernel
with no Unix-specific functionality. The Unix services are now
provided as a user-state server task. This server has BSD-derived
code. So now, CMU can give you the Mach 3.0 micro-kernel source
without any licenses. But to get a full Unix-like environment, you
still need an OS server.

FSF's HURD effort is based on the Mach 3.0 micro-kernel. They are writing
their own OS servers on top, from scratch. HURD is not attempting to do
anything inside the micro-kernel; they'll pick it up as it is from CMU.

PC-TCP
------

A basic implementation of TCP/IP on PCs, is MIT/CMU's PC-TCP. This is
public domain, and implements the standard applications (telnet, ftp,
r*) but no NFS. Many other later implementations are modelled after
PC-TCP.

SOSS
----

This is a program which completely takes over a DOS PC and shows
that file system to the world via NFS.  Great for taking backups
at night, e.g.

The PC becomes an NFS server. But it has shortcomings if you want the DOS
disk to be used for Unix applications. The filenames must follow DOS
format, and the SOSS implementation crashes about about 7500 files have
been opened (not simultaneously, but at all, since SOSS bootup).

Clarkson packet drivers
-----------------------

These are drivers for a zillion ethernet cards.  I believe you can get
a TCP/IP which works with these. NCSA, FTP Soft, and most others work
on top of packet drivers. These packet drivers are low-level enough to
just hide the hardware-specific differences. The rest of the protocol
stack is outside.

NCSA telnet/ftp
---------------

This is free telnet and ftp for the PC.  It comes with it's own TCP/IP
protocol stack.


-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajays...@usc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!terminator!news
From: pa...@icecreambar.css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone)
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.220331.21122@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Sender: n...@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Usenet Owner)
Reply-To: pa...@umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan
References: <19ntp1INN2qo@almaak.usc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 22:03:31 GMT
Lines: 49

Ajay Shah writes
| This file is a attempt at a quick summary of the Unix options for
| 386 boxes.  It is not monolithic or complete; it's supposed to be
| a quick first look at the field.  It is not a objective, factual
| summary; instead it reflects our biases and experiences.
| 
|         - Ajay Shah (ajays...@usc.edu)
|           Shuvam Misra (shu...@jogin.cse.iitb.ernet.in)

[...]

| Free 386-BSD
| ------------
| 
| This is a free BSD for the 386.  It does NFS and X.
| Grab it from agate.berkeley.edu.  Bill Jolitz is writing a book on it.
| 
| It has a neat, small kernel, and is stable enough to run for a week or
| more without crashing/hanging. It works fine with 4MB RAM and 80MB
| disk.  Running X however needs 8MB RAM, and supports only vanilla VGA.
| The TCP/IP implementation in this is functional, but not optimised.
| This means that FTP throughput is about 5KB/sec on Ethernet, when
| almost anything else gives you about 70KB to 100KB per second.
| 
| Read comp.unix.bsd. That is almost entirely Jolitz's 386BSD now.

I don't know the technical ins and outs of TCP/IP, but with the default  
installation of 386BSD, a thin-net ether system and a 3COM Etherlink II, I  
easily get over 60kb / second when retrieving documents from the site on  
my 386BSD machine (anonymous site--try it yourself) via ftp to one of the  
busier machines in the net at work.  When making the reverse transfer with  
the same files, I obtained better than 230Kb / second.  Not too shabby for  
not being "optimized".

Furthermore the system has crashed so far only for understandable reasons.   
That is, only while compiling, and then as far as I can tell because the  
installation's default swap quantity is too low.  That's an important  
thing to note for beginning installers -- DON'T INSTALL IT UNTIL YOU HAVE  
FIGURED OUT HOW TO MAKE SWAP BIGGER OR YOU WILL MAKE LOTS MORE WORK FOR  
YOURSELF LATER, AND/OR JUST END UP REINSTALLING.  Just something to keep  
in mind.

Other than that, the machine has never crashed, and it has been on line  
continuously since the beginning of July.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz
From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone)
Date: 22 Sep 1992 23:16:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <19o9fhINNplu@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <19ntp1INN2qo@almaak.usc.edu> <1992Sep22.220331.21122@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep22.220331.21...@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pa...@umich.edu writes:
>
>Furthermore the system has crashed so far only for understandable reasons.   
>That is, only while compiling, and then as far as I can tell because the  
>installation's default swap quantity is too low.  That's an important  
>thing to note for beginning installers -- DON'T INSTALL IT UNTIL YOU HAVE  
>FIGURED OUT HOW TO MAKE SWAP BIGGER OR YOU WILL MAKE LOTS MORE WORK FOR  
>YOURSELF LATER, AND/OR JUST END UP REINSTALLING.  Just something to keep  
>in mind.

Just a note -- we've been running the standard system (5MB swap space)
recompiling the system, X windows, running debuggers, the BSD command set,
and so forth and have not had to raise the swap space at all.

We've done this on 386 and 486 systems with all manner of controller and
drive types and all amounts of memory (2MB, 3MB, 8MB, 16MB, 20MB).

While upping swap space may appear to solve the problem, it is questionable
whether it is actually dealing with the REAL problem, or is just masking
it in some way.

I suggest that we start looking more closely at these situations, to 
deterministically localize this problem.

Lynne.

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!nuke
From: n...@wam.umd.edu (root)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.052359.6059@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 23 Sep 92 05:23:59 GMT
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1992Sep22.195755.9524@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Sender: use...@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 8
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu

Okay....
Suppose I was reading along, and thought about installing
a unix-like beast on my machine.  It is a 486 dx250 (for ref.)
What advantages/disadvantages would this have over... say... DOS?

anyone care to comment on the performance ratios of linux vs dos?

---curious.

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.092500.827@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 23 Sep 92 09:25:00 GMT
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1992Sep22.195755.9524@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
<1992Sep23.052359.6059@wam.umd.edu>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 34

In article <1992Sep23.052359.6...@wam.umd.edu> n...@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
>Okay....
>Suppose I was reading along, and thought about installing
>a unix-like beast on my machine.  It is a 486 dx250 (for ref.)
>What advantages/disadvantages would this have over... say... DOS?

If you are wondering, keeping to DOS is probably a good idea.  unix
gives you multitasking, a stable platform (a bad program won't crash
your machine), better resource handling etc.  In fact, OS/2 (and to some
extent windows 3.1) gives you similar capabilities, the implementation
just differs.  Many people want unix just because that is what they use
at all the other machines they have access to. 

DOS (windows) is cheap, has a lot of programs you can buy in any
computer store, and usually gets the work done, especially if you are
running just one machine.  On the other hand, it has weird limits (64kB,
640kB, small/large/huge memory models), and doesn't take full advantage
of your machine. 

>anyone care to comment on the performance ratios of linux vs dos?

Performance is not the big point, and is very hard to measure (apples
and oranges: how fast does DOS run multiple programs at once?).  In
general, DOS applications can be faster, because they can take shortcuts
(writing directly to screen memory etc).  On the other hand, linux (and
any other unix) gives an application a simpler view of memory management
(no more segments etc), which can be a big win in some circumstances. 

If you don't have a big stake in DOS programs, I'd suggest you try out
linux or 386bsd - they are both free, so you won't lose anything but
some time to get aquainted with the system.  You might be pleasantly
surprised, but if you aren't, you can always stick with DOS or windows. 

		Linus

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!
caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!boulder!ucsu!fido.Colorado.EDU!farrow
From: far...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <farrow.717283978@fido.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: n...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: fido.colorado.edu
Reply-To: far...@fido.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu>
Distribution: cu
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 21:32:58 GMT
Lines: 30

5916rahm...@vms.csd.mu.edu (K. M. A. Rahman) writes:

>Hello everybody,
>	Am I the first one to post on this group? If you're reading
>	please reply.

>	I'd like to install a 'small' unix (or some version of it) on
>	my pc-clone.32bit. Can some body recommend me a low-cost
>	package?

>	Thank you. Anis.

Low cost? How about free? Linux is freely available via ftp and takes up
a small fraction of the size of 386BSD. True Linux is in some ways not as
developed as 386BSD, but if you want small its the way to go. Personally,
I'd recommend one of the "interim" release packages. Linux development has
been going so fast, they upgrade the kernel once every 2 to three weeks, and
keeping up can be a pain.

Send me mail if you need more Linux info, or read comp.os.linux.

Cheers,

Scott

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow - Student Programmer & Operator, Computing & Network Services
University of Colorado at Boulder, (303) 492-4428 ,far...@spot.colorado.edu, 
HATE is not a family value. - Vote NO on Amendment #2.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!
news.cs.indiana.edu!syscon!gator!larry
From: la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com>
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu> <farrow.717283978@fido.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: cu
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 12:00:13 GMT
Lines: 13

far...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:

>Low cost? How about free? Linux is freely available via ftp and takes up
>a small fraction of the size of 386BSD. True Linux is in some ways not as

I would suggest Linux as well over Coherent -- it's free -- and complete
source is included.  I mean, if one want's real Unix they can go the
commercial route like SVR4 -- however, why spend $$ on Coherent with Linux
available?

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

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!
decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!messina
From: mess...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 22:13:37 GMT
Organization: Messina Software
Distribution: cu
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu> <farrow.717283978@fido.Colorado.EDU> 
<Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com>
Lines: 36

la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>I would suggest Linux as well over Coherent -- it's free -- and complete
>source is included.  I mean, if one want's real Unix they can go the
>commercial route like SVR4 -- however, why spend $$ on Coherent with Linux
>available?

Well, first of all I would put only one '$' and not '$$' - I mean, it's
not even three digits.  Now for the reasons:

1. Mark Williams Company has been around for 20 years (give or take a
   couple).  That is something you can count on when comes to future
   releases. 

2. *Because* it is commercial.  That to me suggest that there is
   someone behind it that has a stake in it.  Linux is great for
   hackers, but it's future is a complete unknown, precisely because
   noone has a stake in it.

3. Some people prefer to use the system for getting the work done and
   prefer to leave the kernel hacking to the authors of the OS.  They
   may prefer to purchase a product with a stable past and predictable
   future in terms of support and upgrades instead of becoming
   co-authors of the OS.

4. Coherent supports COFF binaries which Linux does not.  That in
   itself is a good reason.

Why not SVR4?  Well, I personally believe that is a great solution and
once I can justify a purchase of a completely new system I may go that
route.  

Best,

t.

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!
cs.widener.edu!dsinc!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!jmsimon
From: jmsi...@acsu.buffalo.edu (JMS)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Keywords: Linux, Coherent, comparisons, *_OPINIONS_* ;^)
Message-ID: <Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:46:54 GMT
References: <farrow.717283978@fido.Colorado.EDU> <Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com> 
<v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com>
Sender: jmsi...@acsu.buffalo.edu (JMS)
Organization: UB (IB, weB, some of us don't B)
Lines: 105
Nntp-Posting-Host: lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu

In <v29nm5d.mess...@netcom.com> mess...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>
>la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>
>>I would suggest Linux as well over Coherent -- it's free -- and complete
>>source is included.  I mean, if one want's real Unix they can go the
>>commercial route like SVR4 -- however, why spend $$ on Coherent with Linux
>>available?
>
>Well, first of all I would put only one '$' and not '$$' - I mean, it's
>not even three digits.  Now for the reasons:
>
>1. Mark Williams Company has been around for 20 years (give or take a
>   couple).  That is something you can count on when comes to future
>   releases. 

Ok, but just because they have a past doesn't mean they'll have a future,
or even that there will be updates in whatever future they create ;^)

I can name plenty of software vendors that have been around for years that
no longer support their old products (and Microsoft could very well make
_that_ list as well as such past greats as Micropro).

*Since* they have been around for so long, why don't they support any
type of networking, X, (or MGR for that matter); things to think about.

If that is important to you, it's your money.

>2. *Because* it is commercial.  That to me suggest that there is
>   someone behind it that has a stake in it.  Linux is great for
>   hackers, but it's future is a complete unknown, precisely because
>   noone has a stake in it.

Maybe. As far as a future, Linux 0.96c was very stable (and many people
still use it for their platform.) If you want to keep up with the releases
that come out every other day (or patches every hour 8-} ) you can; if you
don't want to, no one is forcing you to.

The nice thing is that if you _need_ a patch, you can count on it being
made available without waiting for a big, slow, commerical entity to
make said fixes available. Also, functionality to all commands and all
parts of the OS are being worked on concurrently by people who have no
_financial_ stake in the product -- their only stake is making the
system work well for them; you can be sure quality is just as high if
not higher, although there is no time overhead of waiting for shipping
approval, etc.

Of course (before I spawn a needless war) 386BSD will give you these
same 'features' (lots of people improving the system without waiting
or looking expectantly for a paycheck!)

>3. Some people prefer to use the system for getting the work done and
>   prefer to leave the kernel hacking to the authors of the OS.  They
>   may prefer to purchase a product with a stable past and predictable
>   future in terms of support and upgrades instead of becoming
>   co-authors of the OS.

I have a completely source compatible system with the SUNOS and Ultrix
systems I commonly write software for. GCC is a great compiler, and the
use of shared libraries (GCC 2.2.2d for Linux) keeps my small drive
happy.

>4. Coherent supports COFF binaries which Linux does not.  That in
>   itself is a good reason.

This is true, but if someone using BSD or Linux wants this functionality,
you can be sure it'll be available before I finish typing this (or you
finish reading it ;-> )

>Why not SVR4?  Well, I personally believe that is a great solution and
>once I can justify a purchase of a completely new system I may go that
>route.  

Wow. I suppose if you have the $$$$ for that (I believe 4 digits would
be correct?) that is an option. Many people would like to get their feet
wet first, and may even find that a _free_ product completely suits their
needs. There are trade-offs to everything. If you desparately need a 
feature that is only found in commerical *nixes (DOS compatibility,
although Linux is getting their with a group of people working on
emulation, and dreaming of the day when Linux does Windows better than
OS/2 doing Windows :] ) than you will have no choice but to go that
route. Give the free products a try, tho. I am a Linux fanatic, but will
install BSD if I can get a 400mb SCSI I have to work -- I want to see
what BSD has to offer me as well; with free products, there is no lock
in -- you'll never be charged for updates, and you won't have to wait
2 years between releases, either. Bug fixes will be made available (when
necessary) a lot quicker than you'll find from any of our lumbering
corporate giant friends.

>Best,
>
>t.

Sorry to go on like this. I just don't want to see anyone pondering
a *nix feel they _have_ to buy something, just for the sake of
buying it. Shop around if you are going to buy, but it doesn't hurt
to give the free systems a shot.

	JMS

-- 
*******************************************************************************
 Jeffrey M. Simon	       .o   o.	     Computer Science / Business Mgmt.
 jmsi...@acsu.buffalo.edu       ~~v~~	     State University of NY at Buffalo
***** "Perspiration = ( Genius - 1% Inspiration ) / .99" -Ein*kinda*stein *****

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!
dsinc!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!lemis!
grog
From: g...@lemis.uucp (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Attempted summary (Was Re: UNIX on a PC clone)
Message-ID: <2388@adagio.lemis.uucp>
Date: 25 Sep 92 13:29:08 GMT
References: <00961007.3FF78540@vms.csd.mu.edu> <19ntp1INN2qo@almaak.usc.edu>
Organization: LEMIS, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 29

In article <19ntp1INN...@almaak.usc.edu> ajays...@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>This file is a attempt at a quick summary of the Unix options for
>386 boxes.  It is not monolithic or complete; it's supposed to be
>a quick first look at the field.  It is not a objective, factual
>summary; instead it reflects our biases and experiences.

Nice summary.

>BSD-386 (by BSDI)
>-----------------
>
>This is a finished, commercial BSD 4.3.  It's $1000 including The
>Source.  There are no conditions attached for the source. 

This is not correct. This is a single system license, and you can't
distribute any of the sources (the minority) with BSDI copyright on
them.

>Coherent
>--------
>
>This is a 32-bit Unixy OS.

Version 4.0 is. Careful with older releases.

-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!rde!ksmith!keith
From: ke...@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:00:22 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep27.060022.1195@ksmith.uucp>
Keywords: Linux, Coherent, comparisons, *_OPINIONS_* ;^)
References: <Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com> <v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com> 
<Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Lines: 153

In article <Bv3zI7....@acsu.buffalo.edu> jmsi...@acsu.buffalo.edu (JMS) writes:
>In <v29nm5d.mess...@netcom.com> mess...@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>>
>>la...@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>
>>>I would suggest Linux as well over Coherent -- it's free -- and complete
[...]
>*Since* they have been around for so long, why don't they support any
>type of networking, X, (or MGR for that matter); things to think about.

Networking is in the next release 4.1.  MWC did not get it's start in
writing unix clones.  They wrote lots of other reasonably priced stuff
like 'C' compilers, and such (you gotta remember WAY back).  I think the
Coherent to x86 port was kinda was a "keen idea", that developed a lot
more interest than they expected.  Then when the [34]86 became such a
popular platform they ported it on up.  I think it has only been
recently that MWC has really begun to push Coherent on PC platforms. 
And they are doing it by adhering to standards too.  iBCS, COFF, and
POSIX to name a few, although they aren't quite yet up to snuff.  That
means your Coherent program may run under SCO or SVR4 too.  They have
also mimic'd many of the SVR3 system calls, and have supported loadable
device drivers since the 286 days.  Give them a little time.  They've
been working on a 386 Unix for about a year with a handful of people and
produced a pretty darn stable product.

>
>If that is important to you, it's your money.
>
>>2. *Because* it is commercial.  That to me suggest that there is
>>   someone behind it that has a stake in it.  Linux is great for
>>   hackers, but it's future is a complete unknown, precisely because
>>   noone has a stake in it.
>
[ .96c stable, upgrade? ...]
>The nice thing is that if you _need_ a patch, you can count on it being
>made available without waiting for a big, slow, commerical entity to

Well,  now that sorta depends on what "needs" patching and who thinks
it's important, and whether or not you wanna hack it yourself or not.

Also, Coherent is not a big, slow, commercial entity.  In fact I'd call
it a small tight commercial entity.

>make said fixes available. Also, functionality to all commands and all
>parts of the OS are being worked on concurrently by people who have no
>_financial_ stake in the product -- their only stake is making the
>system work well for them; you can be sure quality is just as high if
>not higher, although there is no time overhead of waiting for shipping
>approval, etc.

shipping approval?  C'mon,  Coherent put out a fix to their keyboard
driver within about a month to allow older keyboards to work with multiple
Virtual consoles.  This was obviously from user requests.  You can be
sure it was THOUROUGHLY tested too.  In fact it installed on my box
without a hitch or glitch.  A financial stake can be a very high
MOTIVATOR to get something done too!  ie.  If I don't get this finished
I don't EAT this week.

[386BSD...]

>>3. Some people prefer to use the system for getting the work done and
>>   prefer to leave the kernel hacking to the authors of the OS.  They
>>   may prefer to purchase a product with a stable past and predictable
>>   future in terms of support and upgrades instead of becoming
>>   co-authors of the OS.
>
>I have a completely source compatible system with the SUNOS and Ultrix
>systems I commonly write software for. GCC is a great compiler, and the
>use of shared libraries (GCC 2.2.2d for Linux) keeps my small drive
>happy.

Yep,  Coherent needs shared libraries, VM and Networking to compete
beyond being a MESSY DOS replacement.  The latter 2 are slated for 4.1,
and the former has been discussed as a top future priority.  I think the
current push is to get the 4.0 device driver kit out the door.

By the same token, with compilers and awks and libraries and most of the
rest of the day to day *ix utilities Coherent 4.0 fits on 6 1.2M
floppies.  That does WONDERS for space.  GCC 2.X is a monster, but
someone is porting it to Coh.  In fact I have Coh loaded on a 386SX/33
(yes SX not DX /33) with an old DTC7287 (that Linux choked on) and a
sticky spindle ST251 (pushed to 60MB).  Haven't even hit 50% yet.

>
>>4. Coherent supports COFF binaries which Linux does not.  That in
>>   itself is a good reason.
>
>This is true, but if someone using BSD or Linux wants this functionality,
>you can be sure it'll be available before I finish typing this (or you
>finish reading it ;-> )

Nope,  I HAD a LINUX up for a while.  Swapped it for Coherent.  Coh
seems to be more hardware tolerant too.  Even runs a bunch of my SCO
stuff without recompile.  This is a major +.  LINUS has already said he
could care less about COFF/ELF, and system call compatability.  Of
course he could always change his mind.  Don't get me wrong.  I think
linux is really great.  I just wouldn't put it in a clients office, and
I can't see WordPerfect doing a LINUX port in the near future.  Coherent
on the other hand ...

>
>>Why not SVR4?  Well, I personally believe that is a great solution and
>>once I can justify a purchase of a completely new system I may go that
>>route.  
>
>Wow. I suppose if you have the $$$$ for that (I believe 4 digits would
>be correct?) that is an option. Many people would like to get their feet
>wet first, and may even find that a _free_ product completely suits their
>needs. There are trade-offs to everything. If you desparately need a 

I have MST SVR4 sans the networking cost less than $700.  I rate it
fair.  No manuals.  With Coherent you get a fairly comprehensive manual
that holds your hand thru the basics, like setting up uucp, and using
make, and awk and sed, and ...   Now with a free unix, you end up buying
$100 worth of commercial texts to figure all that stuff out, or you
spend $50 on paper to print whatever you can find (which will leave out
a whole bunch of stuff for a novice).

[ Features forcing your direction ...]
[ but try linux ...]
>in -- you'll never be charged for updates, and you won't have to wait
>2 years between releases, either. Bug fixes will be made available (when

Wow,  releases of what?  Who's UNIX, and what defines a "release".  a
USL relase (4.0, 4.1, 4.2 ...)  Or vendor sub-releases with bug fixes
and enhancements...

>necessary) a lot quicker than you'll find from any of our lumbering
>corporate giant friends.

That depends.  Don't hold your breath EITHER WAY.

Linux is great.  If you have a lot of time, and want to really roll up
your sleeves and build that car from scratch, AND if you are already
familiar with UNIX in the first place, go with LINUX.

If you just want to get a feel for a Unix like operating system, and
you'd like an easy installation, and one place to go with your problems
to get it fixed, along with some stability, and binary compatability,
and some reasonable documentation try Coherent.

>Sorry to go on like this. I just don't want to see anyone pondering
>a *nix feel they _have_ to buy something, just for the sake of
>buying it. Shop around if you are going to buy, but it doesn't hurt
>to give the free systems a shot.

Nope,  Not at all, but also consider what your TIME is worth, as well as
what it's going to cost you to collect all the "free" software, esp if
you are downloading it from a BBS or something.
-- 
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 ...

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!purdue!sjc
From: s...@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:56:01 GMT
References: <Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com> <v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com>
	<Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp>
Sender: n...@cs.purdue.EDU
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 32

}} In article <1992Sep27.055538.1...@ksmith.uucp> ke...@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) 
writes:
}} 
}} Give them a little time.  They've
}} been working on a 386 Unix for about a year with a handful of people and
}} produced a pretty darn stable product.

There's the rub.  If you consider Linus, Drew, H.J., and a couple of
others who've slipped my mind to be working on linux (no offense
intended), then they've accomplished more in less time, with less
staff, than MWC (linux has networking, virtual memory, X, MGR, ...).

And with Owen and Ted helping to manage the software at FTP sites, the
burden of collecting it is way overrated.  There's even a service that
will ship you pre-formatted, bootable floppies with linux, if you
don't have ftp access.

Nope, the place where Coherent wins is NOT on the technical side.  It
is with the documentation, and the "it's a real company, so they'll
give me better support" security blanket that is necessary to get bean
counters to use a product.  No disputing it, Coherent has linux beat
on those counts, and thus Coherent is a better choice for the user who
isn't interested in compiling a kernel.

Both have their niche.

}} Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.

s...@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
       "If you loose your arrow, you're likely to lose it in the weeds,"
                       was often heard in days of yore.

               Help stamp out variable length protocol headers!

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk
From: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Message-ID: <9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP>
References: <Bv300E.JxC@gator.rn.com> <v29nm5d.messina@netcom.com> 
<Bv3zI7.L50@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp> 
<19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
Lines: 45

In article <19...@ector.cs.purdue.edu> s...@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>}} In article <1992Sep27.055538.1...@ksmith.uucp> ke...@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) 
writes:
>}} 
>}} Give them a little time.  They've
>}} been working on a 386 Unix for about a year with a handful of people and
>}} produced a pretty darn stable product.
>
>There's the rub.  If you consider Linus, Drew, H.J., and a couple of
>others who've slipped my mind to be working on linux (no offense
>intended), then they've accomplished more in less time, with less
>staff, than MWC (linux has networking, virtual memory, X, MGR, ...).

But then you have to consider that the total staff of MWC is 30 people,
and that 5 of them are actually programmers.  And that they support both
286 and 386 versions of Coherent.  And that Coherent 4.0 runs binaries
from ESIX, ISC, and SCO SVR3 boxes, and produces binaries for those same
boxes.  And they have people working on TCP/IP, virtual memory, and the
rest of the goodies.

>And with Owen and Ted helping to manage the software at FTP sites, the
>burden of collecting it is way overrated.  There's even a service that
>will ship you pre-formatted, bootable floppies with linux, if you
>don't have ftp access.

>Nope, the place where Coherent wins is NOT on the technical side.  It
>is with the documentation, and the "it's a real company, so they'll
>give me better support" security blanket that is necessary to get bean
>counters to use a product.  No disputing it, Coherent has linux beat
>on those counts, and thus Coherent is a better choice for the user who
>isn't interested in compiling a kernel.

Coherent is a better choice for someone who wants an OS with one foot in
the door of the commercial world.

Coherent is a better choice for someone who doesn't want to recompile the
kernel, the compiler, and every command in the system once a week.

I like Linux, and if I had a spare PC that I wasn't using, I would have it
up and running here.  I've fooled with it on other systems, like it, but
realize that it is not at the state where it can be relied upon to be up
24 hours a day.

-- 

Rick Kelly	r...@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	r...@frog.UUCP

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!terminator!stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu!pauls
From: pa...@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.202105.5690@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Sender: n...@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Usenet Owner)
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
References: <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp> <19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu> 
<9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:21:05 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <9210010028...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Coherent is a better choice for someone who doesn't want to recompile the
>kernel, the compiler, and every command in the system once a week.

Pshaw.  This is a ridiculous exaggeration and simply not true.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@cybaswan.UUCP (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Message-ID: <1038@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:16:07 GMT
References: <19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu> <9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP> 
<1992Oct1.202105.5690@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Organization: University College Swansea
Lines: 24


Linux is stable, and stable enough to use in a commercial environment. You 
don't have to keep adding version upgrades to your system, and for a long
while I ran 0.96c watching 0.97 develop and never having to worry about it.
In the end I upgraded to get tcpip and file locking support when I needed it.
Im now watching 0.98 come out, but it will be a while before I upgrade
to it. At the moment the kernel changes minor version about 3 times a month,
I've had upgrades and patches to commercial stuff come in that rapidly
before now - if you make a nuisance of yourself and demand every fix on time
as it comes out. Vendors on the whole don't keep feeding you all the fixes
because its easier for them to do a major upgrade, its easier for you
to do the occasional major upgrade, and tech support can always give
you the minor upgrade you need if you phone up and say help help this
doesnt work.

My linux machine is an ax.25 and tcp/ip router over radio, it plays
a lot of rogue and nethack, and I'm doing a lot of dos emulator development
and multi-user game development on it. It's running on some thrown together
plug and play hardware (including an old mfm disk controller and for 
a while a herc card, and also for a bit no video card (I had console on
a serial line.). It does its stuff very well. I know people running 386bsd
on commercial systems too.

Alan

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!
cs.widener.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk
From: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Message-ID: <9210021514.34@rmkhome.UUCP>
References: <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp> <19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu> 
<9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Oct1.202105.5690@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Lines: 33

In article <1992Oct1.202105.5...@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pa...@css.itd.umich.edu 
(Paul Southworth) writes:
>In article <9210010028...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Coherent is a better choice for someone who doesn't want to recompile the
>>kernel, the compiler, and every command in the system once a week.
>
>Pshaw.  This is a ridiculous exaggeration and simply not true.

Comp.os.linux can give someone that impression.  Every time gcc gets 
upgraded, certain things seem to stop working.  Although it doesn't 
seem to be as bad now as a few months ago.

A friend of mine was running 0.12.  It seemed to run pretty well.  But
he was never able to get X working.  I posted to the net with specific
questions that included the type of video card nd monitor that he was
using.  The email responses were mostly, "if you figure it out will
you email me?".  We gave up after a week.  And both of us have set up
X on commercial UNIX boxes.

He tried to upgrade gcc, but he couldn't get it to compile itself.  The
doc files that he had were sparsely written, and seemed to contain a lot
of conflicting information.  And at that time the Linux FTP sites appeared
to have wildly different revisions of software.

He finally gave up, and he is now running OS/2.

I like Linux, and I will probably set up a 386SX machine so that I can
fool around with Linux and 386BSD.  I have more experience than he does
with porting software, and debugging other peoples sources, and I will
probably get things up and running in a reasonable time frame.

-- 

Rick Kelly	r...@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	r...@frog.UUCP

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!organ.cis.ohio-state.edu!balasub
From: bala...@organ.cis.ohio-state.edu (Krishna Balasubramanian)
Subject: Re: UNIX on a PC clone
In-Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20: 14:21 GMT
Message-ID: <BALASUB.92Oct3062603@organ.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Originator: bala...@organ.cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: n...@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews        )
Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
References: <1992Sep27.055538.1035@ksmith.uucp> <19743@ector.cs.purdue.edu>
	<9210010028.47@rmkhome.UUCP>
	<1992Oct1.202105.5690@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
	<9210021514.34@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 11:26:03 GMT
Lines: 47

>>In article <9210010028...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>Coherent is a better choice for someone who doesn't want to recompile the
>>>kernel, the compiler, and every command in the system once a week.
>>
>>Pshaw.  This is a ridiculous exaggeration and simply not true.

>Comp.os.linux can give someone that impression.  Every time gcc gets 
>upgraded, certain things seem to stop working.  Although it doesn't 
>seem to be as bad now as a few months ago.

Now the shared libraries use jump tables so binaries work with
new versions. 

>A friend of mine was running 0.12.  It seemed to run pretty well.  But
>he was never able to get X working.  I posted to the net with specific
>questions that included the type of video card nd monitor that he was
>using.  The email responses were mostly, "if you figure it out will
>you email me?".  We gave up after a week.  And both of us have set up
>X on commercial UNIX boxes.

As I recall X11 support came in after linux-0.95 so it wasn't too
likely it would work with linux-0.12.

>He tried to upgrade gcc, but he couldn't get it to compile itself.  The
>doc files that he had were sparsely written, and seemed to contain a lot
>of conflicting information.  And at that time the Linux FTP sites appeared
>to have wildly different revisions of software.

GCC has been distributed in binary form since 0.95  so I
believe your info is somewhat out of date (by 5 months or so, 
which is significant as linux has been around just twice as long?)
The GCC docs have been a subject of criticism and have been updated.

>He finally gave up, and he is now running OS/2.

>I like Linux, and I will probably set up a 386SX machine so that I can
>fool around with Linux and 386BSD.  I have more experience than he does
>with porting software, and debugging other peoples sources, and I will
>probably get things up and running in a reasonable time frame.

Perhaps if you gave this machine 640K  RAM and a 5 Meg HD you will
be able to conclude that neither OS worked -- ouch :-).

krishna

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/