Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!wyvern!
taylor!mark
From: m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Linux beoming a real choice?
Organization: Lake Taylor Hospital Computer Services
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 23:35:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1993May20.233532.12733@taylor.uucp>
Lines: 24
I hate to post this message here, but I currently do not have access to the
Linux group, so please forgive me :)
The concept of Linux is really starting to grab my attention now. The work
seems to be progressing into a viable OS. I am aware of the many utilities
available for it, as well as networking and X windows. My question is this:
I have Interactive Unix at home which I would like to replace. But there
are two things which I think Linux lacks which make it more feasible- true
MS-"DOS" emulation (like Vpix, with sound and graphics, etc), and SCO-Unix and/
or Xenix and/or System V/386 binaries compatibility. I would need these two
things before starting to go Linux crazy.
My logic is thusforth: Most people still have MS-"DOS" software which they
need to run, and running it UNDER Unix is preferable. AND many people have
Unix binaries for production software which will not run under Unix (and may
never be available in Linux native binary format).
So, does anyone know if these two things are yet available, coming,
or planned? (If they are, Linux could start an interesting revolution!)
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
| Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor / m...@taylor.UUCP |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!
uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <1993May21.205913.27066@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <1993May20.233532.12733@taylor.uucp>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 20:59:13 GMT
Lines: 33
In article <1993May20.233532.12...@taylor.uucp> m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis)
writes:
>
>The concept of Linux is really starting to grab my attention now. The work
>seems to be progressing into a viable OS. I am aware of the many utilities
>available for it, as well as networking and X windows. My question is this:
>I have Interactive Unix at home which I would like to replace. But there
>are two things which I think Linux lacks which make it more feasible- true
>MS-"DOS" emulation (like Vpix, with sound and graphics, etc), and SCO-Unix and/
>or Xenix and/or System V/386 binaries compatibility. I would need these two
>things before starting to go Linux crazy.
Both are being somewhat worked on - the linux DOS emulator already works
reasonably well (not as complete as many others, but it's starting to
get there), and while binary compatibility isn't there, I'm slowly
looking into it.
There has been some limited Xenix binary compatibility for a long time
(I seem to remember the first patches from about a year ago), but it
never made it into the kernel proper, and I don't know where to find the
patcher or whether they actually work with reasonably new kernels. I'm
personally slowly checking the iBCS2 standard (bought the d*mned
standards book last week), but have so far just changed the signal stack
frame to conform, and I wouldn't hold my breath for any real
compatibility for some time (although in a separate project Eric
Youngdale has run a few ELF binaries by messing with the shared
libraries..)
Right now, and for the immediate future, I'm afraid any serious linux
use (contradiction in terms? :-) would have to be done with "native"
binaries. This does mean that most free software is available, but
don't expect to move over your SysV commercial binaries.
Linus
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!jti.com!richb
From: ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com>
Sender: n...@jti.com (News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: europa.jti.com
Organization: Jupiter Technology Inc. / Waltham, MA
References: <1u5qt9INNrqg@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <C7xGKC.n3n@csie.nctu.edu.tw>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 15:13:02 GMT
Lines: 22
A week ago, I downloaded Linux 0.99 patch level 10a. (I've been running
it and upgrading ever since 0.98 pl5.) This version contains SLIP, and
it also contains an interesting subdirectory:
ibcs
It only contains a code stub, but it got me pretty excited because it looks
like the developers are getting serious about the Intel Binary Compatibility
Standard.
This will allow Linux to run SysVr4 applications. And no, I don't think
this will compromise the design of Linux, other than to distract the
developers for a while during the process of implementing this compatibility
mode.
Speaking for myself, I think Linux won't become a serious contender (and
would remain a hacker's toy) until the range of applications is broadened
immensely. This is the fastest shortcut, barring Windows 3.1 compatibility
which I also hear is in the works (doesn't dosemu 0.49 run Win 3.1 apps
in "standard" mode?).
-rich
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!
yale.edu!think.com!spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk
From: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 01:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Message-ID: <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
References: <1u5qt9INNrqg@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <C7xGKC.n3n@csie.nctu.edu.tw>
<C83rLr.3u6@jti.com>
Lines: 30
In article <C83rLr....@jti.com> ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>A week ago, I downloaded Linux 0.99 patch level 10a. (I've been running
>it and upgrading ever since 0.98 pl5.) This version contains SLIP, and
>it also contains an interesting subdirectory:
>
> ibcs
>
>It only contains a code stub, but it got me pretty excited because it looks
>like the developers are getting serious about the Intel Binary Compatibility
>Standard.
>
>This will allow Linux to run SysVr4 applications. And no, I don't think
>this will compromise the design of Linux, other than to distract the
>developers for a while during the process of implementing this compatibility
>mode.
>
>Speaking for myself, I think Linux won't become a serious contender (and
>would remain a hacker's toy) until the range of applications is broadened
>immensely. This is the fastest shortcut, barring Windows 3.1 compatibility
>which I also hear is in the works (doesn't dosemu 0.49 run Win 3.1 apps
>in "standard" mode?).
Actually, the SVR3 iBCS (COFF) would be the best standard as that is where
the bulk of the shrink-wrapped commercial products go.
SCO is SVR3 and they are the leading UNIX system in sales.
--
Rick Kelly rmk%rmkh...@merk.com merk!rmkhome!rmk r...@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C87J9K.BF7@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <C7xGKC.n3n@csie.nctu.edu.tw> <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com>
<9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 16:03:20 GMT
Lines: 32
In article <9306052002...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <C83rLr....@jti.com> ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>>A week ago, I downloaded Linux 0.99 patch level 10a. (I've been running
>>it and upgrading ever since 0.98 pl5.) This version contains SLIP, and
>>it also contains an interesting subdirectory:
>>
>> ibcs
>>
>>It only contains a code stub, but it got me pretty excited because it looks
>>like the developers are getting serious about the Intel Binary Compatibility
>>Standard.
>>
>Actually, the SVR3 iBCS (COFF) would be the best standard as that is where
>the bulk of the shrink-wrapped commercial products go.
>
>SCO is SVR3 and they are the leading UNIX system in sales.
I should point out that while I am working on getting SVr4 binaries to
run under linux, the iBCS2 is really only a side issue for me. The interface
under SVr4 is based upon calls to functions in sharable libraries, and says
nothing about syscall specifics. The fact that SVr4 apparently supports both
the ABI and iBCS2 is also a side issue - this was so that SCO binaries would
continue to run under SVr4.
If someone is really interested in iBCS (i.e. running $CO binaries),
then let me know, and I can get you started hacking the kernel to get these
running.
-Eric
--
"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a lawyer."
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!
uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!news.crd.ge.com!sunblossom!tarpit!gator!rde!
ksmith!keith
From: ke...@ksmith.com (Keith Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com>
Date: 8 Jun 93 03:54:52 GMT
References: <C7xGKC.n3n@csie.nctu.edu.tw> <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com>
<9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Lines: 26
In article <9306052002...@rmkhome.UUCP> r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <C83rLr....@jti.com> ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>>A week ago, I downloaded Linux 0.99 patch level 10a. (I've been running
>>it and upgrading ever since 0.98 pl5.) This version contains SLIP, and
>>it also contains an interesting subdirectory:
>>
>> ibcs
>>
>>It only contains a code stub, but it got me pretty excited because it looks
>>like the developers are getting serious about the Intel Binary Compatibility
>>Standard.
>Actually, the SVR3 iBCS (COFF) would be the best standard as that is where
>the bulk of the shrink-wrapped commercial products go.
>
>SCO is SVR3 and they are the leading UNIX system in sales.
In fact SCO has more *ix out than all the other UNIX'es _combined_, and
there is more shrink wrap 3rd party software and hardware support for
SCO than all other Unix'es combined.
Probably why MWC Coherent opted for COFF/SCO compatibility of sorts.
Heck, it will even run some major SCO programs.
--
Keith Smith ke...@ksmith.com 5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!hsdndev!spdcc!jti.com!richb
From: ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
Sender: n...@jti.com (News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: europa.jti.com
Organization: Jupiter Technology Inc. / Waltham, MA
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
<1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 15:26:29 GMT
Lines: 13
ke...@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) writes:
>In fact SCO has more *ix out than all the other UNIX'es _combined_ ...
But that doesn't say much. Unix appears to be fading in the face of
new operating systems. If as someone else suggested in this thread
SCO has sold < 1 million copies of its Unix products, total, then the
number of people using SCO's products today is roughly equal to the
number of additional people who will be starting to use Microsoft
Windows 3.1 next month.
Just to keep things in perspective.
-rich
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!texhrc!texhrc!pyeatt
From: pye...@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <1993Jun10.125257.18809@texhrc.uucp>
Sender: n...@texhrc.uucp
Nntp-Posting-Host: 211.2.1.65
Organization: Texaco
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
<1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com> <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 12:52:57 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <C8D1K5....@jti.com>, ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) writes:
|> ke...@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) writes:
|> >In fact SCO has more *ix out than all the other UNIX'es _combined_ ...
|>
|> But that doesn't say much. Unix appears to be fading in the face of
|> new operating systems. If as someone else suggested in this thread
|> SCO has sold < 1 million copies of its Unix products, total, then the
|> number of people using SCO's products today is roughly equal to the
|> number of additional people who will be starting to use Microsoft
|> Windows 3.1 next month.
Not quite true. One copy of SCO can support 10 or more users. You
are comparing apples and oranges.
--
Larry D. Pyeatt This article does not reflect the views
( pronounced "Johnson" ) of my employer or of myself. Any simi-
Internet : pye...@texaco.com larity to the views of anyone, real or
Voice : (713) 975-4056 fictional, is purely coincidental.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C8FA17.HIG@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com> <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
<1993Jun10.125257.18809@texhrc.uucp>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 20:24:43 GMT
Lines: 31
In article <1993Jun10.125257.18...@texhrc.uucp> pye...@Texaco.com
(Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
>In article <C8D1K5....@jti.com>, ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>|> ke...@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) writes:
>|> >In fact SCO has more *ix out than all the other UNIX'es _combined_ ...
>|>
>|> But that doesn't say much. Unix appears to be fading in the face of
>|> new operating systems. If as someone else suggested in this thread
>|> SCO has sold < 1 million copies of its Unix products, total, then the
>|> number of people using SCO's products today is roughly equal to the
>|> number of additional people who will be starting to use Microsoft
>|> Windows 3.1 next month.
>
>Not quite true. One copy of SCO can support 10 or more users. You
>are comparing apples and oranges.
There are a couple of other points. First of all, for every licensed
copy of windows there are N unlicensed (i.e. pirate) copies. MS does not like
to talk about this very much, but nonetheless, you have to admit that it is
going on. Presumably people would not bother to install and configure Windows
if they did not need it or want it in the first place.
Secondly, application software for unix, be it SCO or SVr4 is generally
more expensive (sometimes much more expensive) than similar applications for
Windows. I do not know why - perhaps they assume that unix people can afford
to pay more, but I think that the main reason is that the development costs can
be amortized over a much larger volume of sales.
-Eric
--
"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a lawyer."
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!
uknet!edcastle!dcs.ed.ac.uk!sct
From: s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <SCT.93Jun11150610@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Jun 93 15:06:10 GMT
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
<1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com> <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
Sender: cn...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: University of Edinburgh Dept. of Computer Science, Scotland
Lines: 44
In-Reply-To: richb@jti.com's message of 9 Jun 93 15:26:29 GMT
On 9 Jun 93 15:26:29 GMT, ri...@jti.com (Rich Braun) said:
> But that doesn't say much. Unix appears to be fading in the face of
> new operating systems. If as someone else suggested in this thread
> SCO has sold < 1 million copies of its Unix products, total, then the
> number of people using SCO's products today is roughly equal to the
> number of additional people who will be starting to use Microsoft
> Windows 3.1 next month.
> Just to keep things in perspective.
What new operating systems? Windows NT? OS/2 2.1? Great single-user
systems, sure, but they won't replace Unix because they just ain't
multi-user. Unix has had X for years, but Microsoft and IBM still
haven't got a graphical user interface which can be automatically run
remotely. NeXTstep, Solaris and Univel have a real opportunity to
bring this advantage home, and NeXT at least has a user interface
every bit as good as Windows'.
Sun claims that a huge amount of software is currently being ported to
Solaris.
I know, there are remote session managers for Windows, but you still
can't run a seamlessly integrated Windows session running applications
on several remote machines from one Windows terminal. Unix has a way
to go in terms of ease of use, but it supports distributed, multi-user
computing right from the start. As PCs become more powerful, I expect
that this ease of sharing massive computing resources amongst many
users will become an increasingly important factor for many
purchasers. Unix may well fit the bill.
Unix ain't dead, because in at least this one battlefield it has no
competition on the PC.
If any operating system appears to be fading, I would say it is
DOS/Windows. Unix will never achieve anything like the level of
ubiquitous presence that DOS has enjoyed, but I do think it will
continue to be a major player in the PC operating systems field.
Cheers,
Stephen.
---
Stephen Tweedie <s...@uk.ac.ed.dcs> (Internet: <s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C8u0uK.G8M@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <FOX.93Jun9232827@graphics.nyu.edu> <C8o2Ko.IB1@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
<1993Jun18.173820.32360@eecs.nwu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 19:30:19 GMT
Lines: 18
In article <1993Jun18.173820.32...@eecs.nwu.edu> h...@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin)
writes:
>What really sucks is that since Windows is bundled with so many
>computers, they artificially inflate the statistics. We have two
>Linux machines in my lab (ramius.eecs.nwu.edu and hook.eecs.nwu.edu),
>both cane with Windows -- on the latter it has never been started, and
>on the former the only thing ever run under Windows was Minesweeper.
My machine came with Windows as well. I used to fire it up to play
minesweep until I found someone had ported it to X so that I can play it under
linux. Since it came with source code, I even rigged it to cheat a little :-).
I was about to wipe all of the Windows stuff from the disk when the WABI
project got started - so I guess I will keeep it around a little while longer.
-Eric
--
"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a lawyer."
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!fauern!
rrze.uni-erlangen.de!cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!uhschreg
From: uhsch...@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 12:05:58 GMT
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany
Message-ID: <206sj6Esqj@uni-erlangen.de>
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
<1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com> <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
<SCT.93Jun11150610@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: faui00t.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Lines: 31
s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>Unix ain't dead, because in at least this one battlefield it has no
>competition on the PC.
>If any operating system appears to be fading, I would say it is
>DOS/Windows. Unix will never achieve anything like the level of
>ubiquitous presence that DOS has enjoyed, but I do think it will
>continue to be a major player in the PC operating systems field.
You know, this reminds me a lot of the battle of video standards.
Beta was better, yet VHS successfully conquered the market.
Now, Beta is still present in the professional sector, but do you
think it'll ever get back to the amateur?
Face it! In the great wide world of the user out there they don't
ask for the technologically best. They ask for utmost compatibility.
If there were one Unix-Version out there one day which could run all
the DOS and Windows stuff, then it'd have a chance.
But that would be like asking for a Beta-VCR that can play VHS.
Remember: IBM won the market back then, when magnetic storage was
introduced, because their system was compatible to ancient Holerith.
Well, they may not be too healthy today, but their standard sure is.
Microsoft might fade. Yet I doubt that Windows will.
May the Cool Be with You!
(C)OOL mcmxciii
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!wyvern!
taylor.wyvern.com!mark
From: m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Organization: Lake Taylor Hospital Computer Services
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 14:33:07 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp>
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <9306052002.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
<1993Jun08.035452.1353@ksmith.com> <C8D1K5.73q@jti.com>
<SCT.93Jun11150610@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk> <206sj6Esqj@uni-erlangen.de>
Lines: 41
uhsch...@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Schreglmann) writes:
>s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>>Unix ain't dead, because in at least this one battlefield it has no
>>competition on the PC.
>>If any operating system appears to be fading, I would say it is
>>DOS/Windows. Unix will never achieve anything like the level of
>>ubiquitous presence that DOS has enjoyed, but I do think it will
>>continue to be a major player in the PC operating systems field.
>Face it! In the great wide world of the user out there they don't
>ask for the technologically best. They ask for utmost compatibility.
Which user? There are lots of markets- if you mean the home market, I
agree. I think there is no chance Unix would even hit 10% of the home
market. But the business market it a different issue. I think there is
a good probability that Unix will more of a major player there. Look at the
healthcare industry: more than half the organizations use Unix in their
facility.
Linux can seriously help the distributed business market too, especially
if it is picked up as the basis for a commercial product.
>If there were one Unix-Version out there one day which could run all
>the DOS and Windows stuff, then it'd have a chance.
??? Using Merge and/or Vpix, one can run almost all that stuff. It is
emulated, but that is the best any non MS-"DOS" OS can hope to do.... now
when WABI comes out, there might be some serious changes happening with the
role of Unix/X.
>May the Cool Be with You!
and with you too
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
| Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | m...@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
eddie.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!swann
From: sw...@acsu.buffalo.edu (stephen swann)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Message-ID: <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: n...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: autarch-14.acsu.buffalo.edu
Organization: UB
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <SCT.93Jun11150610@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
<206sj6Esqj@uni-erlangen.de> <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 16:33:02 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <1993Jun22.143307.10...@taylor.uucp> m...@taylor.uucp
(Mark A. Davis) writes:
>
>Which user? There are lots of markets- if you mean the home market, I
>agree. I think there is no chance Unix would even hit 10% of the home
>market. But the business market it a different issue. I think there is
>a good probability that Unix will more of a major player there. Look at the
>healthcare industry: more than half the organizations use Unix in their
>facility.
I think that it makes a big difference what you're looking for in an
OS. If you're corporate executive type, who badly needs to impress
his boss with flashy multi-media presentations and color laser printed
flyers, then you're going to want DOS/Windows compatibility. If you just
need powerful and comprehensive information management capabilites
without the glossy look, then Unix is probably what you're looking for.
I'm not so sure about X, though. I've worked a little bit with Windows,
and quite a bit more with X, and if anything, I'd say X is even more
obnoxious than Windows. What it needs is for those endless lists of
user-customizable features to be standardized into some easy-to-use
programming packages, instead of fucking around with the core utilities
in C.
What's WABI?
--
Stephen Swann * `` I have several theories, thank you. I just
sw...@cs.buffalo.edu * can't apply them. '' - jd
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
uunet!wyvern!taylor.wyvern.com!mark
From: m...@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice?
Organization: Lake Taylor Hospital Computer Services
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 19:44:13 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp>
References: <C83rLr.3u6@jti.com> <SCT.93Jun11150610@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
<206sj6Esqj@uni-erlangen.de> <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp>
<C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Lines: 48
sw...@acsu.buffalo.edu (stephen swann) writes:
>In article <1993Jun22.143307.10...@taylor.uucp> m...@taylor.uucp
(Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>
>>Which user? There are lots of markets- if you mean the home market, I
>>agree. I think there is no chance Unix would even hit 10% of the home
>>market. But the business market it a different issue. I think there is
>>a good probability that Unix will more of a major player there. Look at the
>>healthcare industry: more than half the organizations use Unix in their
>>facility.
>I think that it makes a big difference what you're looking for in an
>OS. If you're corporate executive type, who badly needs to impress
>his boss with flashy multi-media presentations and color laser printed
>flyers, then you're going to want DOS/Windows compatibility. If you just
>need powerful and comprehensive information management capabilites
>without the glossy look, then Unix is probably what you're looking for.
>I'm not so sure about X, though. I've worked a little bit with Windows,
>and quite a bit more with X, and if anything, I'd say X is even more
>obnoxious than Windows. What it needs is for those endless lists of
>user-customizable features to be standardized into some easy-to-use
>programming packages, instead of fucking around with the core utilities
>in C.
I agree- X can be a pain to configure. Some of the complexity comes from
the power and openness though- like your choice of many "look and feels"
and "window managers" and "desktop managers". This makes things non-standard
and splintered. With MS-"Windows" you have no choice, so of course all the
documentation from anywhere will be referring to the same stuff. But now
that the market seems to be settling on Motif and standard desktops
(supposedly from COSE), these problems MAY fade some.
>What's WABI?
WABI is "Windows Application Binary Interface". Sun is working on it. It
allows Unix/X windows to directly run MS-"Windows" without the need for
x86 emulation and without the need of MS-"Windows". This means that the
applications will run under WABI as fast as on a native MS-"DOS"/ MS-"Windows"
machine. Sun wants to open it up and license the technology to all the
other Unix vendors to help standardize the market, bring more application
software to Unix, make Unix more attractive and competitive, and strike
at Microsoft. *AND I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM*!!!!!!!!!!!
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
| Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | m...@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!
newshub.nosc.mil!humu!pegasus!richard
From: rich...@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
Message-ID: <1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com>
Organization: Pegasus, Honolulu
References: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp> <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
<1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 21:42:42 GMT
Lines: 15
>>What's WABI?
>
>WABI is "Windows Application Binary Interface". Sun is working on it. It
>allows Unix/X windows to directly run MS-"Windows" without the need for
>x86 emulation and without the need of MS-"Windows". This means that the
>applications will run under WABI as fast as on a native MS-"DOS"/ MS-"Windows"
>machine. [...]
MS-Windows without x86 emulation? How ya gonna do that?
Is this supposed to run existing shrink-wrap applications or not?
--
Richard Foulk rich...@pegasus.com
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!prism!gt8134b
From: gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU (Howlin' Bob)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
Message-ID: <103360@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 30 Jun 93 23:40:21 GMT
References: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp> <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
<1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp> <1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com>
Followup-To: comp.unix.misc
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 19
In <1993Jun30.214242.15...@pegasus.com> rich...@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>>allows Unix/X windows to directly run MS-"Windows" without the need for
>>x86 emulation and without the need of MS-"Windows". This means that the
>>applications will run under WABI as fast as on a native MS-"DOS"/ MS-"Windows"
>>machine. [...]
>MS-Windows without x86 emulation? How ya gonna do that?
He was half right; the WABI kernel will be a native application, instead
of running the Windows kernel in x86-emulation. Windows applications will
still be run in an x86 emulator.
--
Robert Sanders
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8134b
Internet: gt81...@prism.gatech.edu
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
uwm.edu!caen!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!cs.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!
vanbc.wimsey.com!not-for-mail
From: s...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
Date: 1 Jul 1993 03:12:41 -0700
Organization: Wimsey Information Technologies
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <20udap$fvq@vanbc.wimsey.com>
References: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp> <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
<1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp> <1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vanbc.wimsey.com
In article <1993Jun30.214242.15...@pegasus.com> rich...@pegasus.com
(Richard Foulk) writes:
>>>What's WABI?
>>
>MS-Windows without x86 emulation? How ya gonna do that?
Partly correct. Your typical Windows application spends a large amount of
time executing code in the Windows kernel. This is replaced with something
that does the same thing but in the native OS and Window environment (e.g.
converting Windows windows calls into X window calls). These end up being
very fast because they are running at full speed.
The rest of the application is x86 code that *must* be emulated.
"Typical" Windows applications running on a medium speed 386/486 (say 486SX25
or 386DX33) might spend 50% of it's time in each of the above types of code.
So on a fast RISC box that can emulate the x86 code at the same speed and
convert and run the Windows code 4 or 5 times as fast you might see an
overall speed increase of 2-3 times.
Time will tell. But it certainly looks like "shrink wrapped" UNIX
applications are just around the corner. And will be available at your local
computer store. Just look for the stuff labelled "requires Microsoft
Windows" :-).
--
Stuart Lynne <s...@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
604-936-8649(voice) 604-937-7718(fax) 604-937-5311(pep) 604-937-7411(v32b)
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!
munnari.oz.au!constellation!midway.ecn.uoknor.edu!parprods
From: parpr...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Dorwin Shields)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
Date: 1 Jul 1993 13:07:25 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <20unid$ris@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
References: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp> <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
<1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp> <1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com>
<20udap$fvq@vanbc.wimsey.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
s...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <1993Jun30.214242.15...@pegasus.com> rich...@pegasus.com
(Richard Foulk) writes:
>>>>What's WABI?
>>>
>>MS-Windows without x86 emulation? How ya gonna do that?
>Partly correct. Your typical Windows application spends a large amount of
>time executing code in the Windows kernel. This is replaced with something
>that does the same thing but in the native OS and Window environment (e.g.
>converting Windows windows calls into X window calls). These end up being
>very fast because they are running at full speed.
>The rest of the application is x86 code that *must* be emulated.
Would it be possible to write a huge binary-compiler which takes x86
code and tears it down so that we can re-map the appropriate calls and
forget the emulation?
Just a thought.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
Message-ID: <C9I9MA.B5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com> <20udap$fvq@vanbc.wimsey.com>
<20unid$ris@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 21:42:09 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <20unid$...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
parpr...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Dorwin Shields) writes:
>>Partly correct. Your typical Windows application spends a large amount of
>>time executing code in the Windows kernel. This is replaced with something
>>that does the same thing but in the native OS and Window environment (e.g.
>>converting Windows windows calls into X window calls). These end up being
>>very fast because they are running at full speed.
>
>>The rest of the application is x86 code that *must* be emulated.
>
> Would it be possible to write a huge binary-compiler which takes x86
>code and tears it down so that we can re-map the appropriate calls and
>forget the emulation?
It would be possible, I suppose, but it would be very silly if you were
planning to run the binaries on a ix86 machine. The Windows binaries can run
directly, albeit in a 286 style of segment, and all calls to the Windows kernel
go to an interface layer which calls X instead. No emulation is required,
although a library is needed which takes all of the Windows calls and does
something with X to provide equivalent functionality. Running a Windows binary
under the Sun WABI is actually supposed to be faster than running them under
Windows. Somehow this does not surprise me very much.
-Eric
--
"When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a lawyer."
Xref: gmd.de comp.unix.misc:6061 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:4066 comp.os.linux:49210
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!
darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sono!imdvlf!al
From: a...@imdvlf.acuson.com (Al Petrofsky)
Subject: Re: Linux beoming a real choice? (WABI?)
In-Reply-To: sl@vanbc.wimsey.com's message of 1 Jul 1993 03: 12:41 -0700
Message-ID: <AL.93Jul4215207@imdvlf.acuson.com>
Sender: a...@acuson.com (Al Petrofsky)
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
References: <1993Jun22.143307.10467@taylor.uucp> <C931z3.Az9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
<1993Jun23.194413.27421@taylor.uucp>
<1993Jun30.214242.15740@pegasus.com>
<20udap$fvq@vanbc.wimsey.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 04:52:06 GMT
Lines: 19
In article < 20udap$f...@vanbc.wimsey.com> s...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne)
writes:
"Typical" Windows applications running on a medium speed 386/486 (say 486SX25
or 386DX33) might spend 50% of it's time in each of the above types of code.
So on a fast RISC box that can emulate the x86 code at the same speed and
convert and run the Windows code 4 or 5 times as fast you might see an
overall speed increase of 2-3 times.
Hmmm... So if my "typical" application takes 100 seconds under
Windows, the 50 seconds of non-Windows code still take 50 seconds and the
Windows calls are sped up to 10 seconds, making the total time 60
seconds. This is a 2-3 times speed increase?
But there I go mixing math and marketing...
-al
( 8-) )