Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com>
Sender: vl...@byteware.com (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 05:59:05 GMT
Lines: 39
I don't know how well the current "Trade in your Old Tired Intel UNIX for a
brand new UnixWare" campaign is going, but I've got an idea.
We really need some of the committed UNIX followers in the UnixWare camp, if
for no other reason than to ensure that the traditional UNIX freeware off the
'Net gets compiled for UnixWare. And what better source of such UNIX zealots
than the Linux camp?
The current trade-up offer rejects Linux, misguidedly snubbing this
"Freeware" OS. This is clearly a mistake as, by now, there's quite a number
of potential converts in the Linux camp - including newbies introduced to the
power of UNIX via the easy entry provided by Linux.
Rather than offer the PE/AS+NFS bundle currently aimed at database sysadmins,
why not then offer a PE+SDK bundle for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM? This package
not only grants a new UnixWare hacker a full C compilation system for porting
freeware to SVR4.2, but the inclusion of all those standard UNIX utilities in
the SDK makes sure that the newly-converted feels fully at home as well.
PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
I envision numerous side benefits from attracting Linux users. To start
with, Linux could become an easy-entry path into UNIX by warming up the
unconverted in preparation for UnixWare. The UnixWare community couldn't be
hurt by exposure to some of the do-it-yourself spirit of the Linux community
(hell, isn't that what UNIX is all about anyway?); we'd be picking up people
who are probably more informed than average. It would not only help bring in
freeware for UnixWare, but device driver writers and kernel tuners as well -
and people accustomed to wedging UNIX onto an Intel box and figuring out what
goes wrong along the way.
Any comments?
--
Jim Vlcek I came,
vl...@byteware.com I saw,
The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
Beautiful downtown St. Paul
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!CERN.ch!news
From: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <Cy8AIq.Gp2@news.cern.ch>
Sender: n...@news.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:25:38 GMT
Lines: 31
In <Cy7sMI....@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
Maybe, but for Novell this would mean that _nobody_ will pay more for
PE+SDK. Everyone wanting this will get a Linux CD-ROM for max $20 and
then will buy UnixWare. The happy parties in this business will be
the customers and the Linux CD-ROM vendors :-)
>
>I envision numerous side benefits from attracting Linux users. To start
>with, Linux could become an easy-entry path into UNIX by warming up the
>unconverted in preparation for UnixWare. The UnixWare community couldn't be
>hurt by exposure to some of the do-it-yourself spirit of the Linux community
>(hell, isn't that what UNIX is all about anyway?); we'd be picking up people
>who are probably more informed than average. It would not only help bring in
>freeware for UnixWare, but device driver writers and kernel tuners as well -
>and people accustomed to wedging UNIX onto an Intel box and figuring out what
>goes wrong along the way.
>
>Any comments?
This deal could attract Linux hackers only if UnixWare came with complete
source code :-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!
newstand.syr.edu!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <1994Oct25.152000.9206@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 15:20:00 GMT
Lines: 11
In article <Cy7sMI....@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>
>I envision numerous side benefits from attracting Linux users. To start
>with, Linux could become an easy-entry path into UNIX by warming up the
>unconverted in preparation for UnixWare.
Linux is not just a "warm up" to a "real" UNIX system, as you seem to
claim. It's a complete UNIX clone, a downright *replacement* for UnixWare.
If you have Linux, you don't have to "step up" to anything else.
mdw
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!
nntpa!not-for-mail
From: co...@hotrod.alph.att.com ()
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: n...@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hotrod.alph.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com> <Cy8AIq.Gp2@news.cern.ch>
<38j3tr$q5u@news.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 20:09:06 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <38j3tr$...@news.bu.edu>, Bryony Bechtold <b...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Dan Pop (dan...@cernapo.cern.ch) wrote:
>: In <Cy7sMI....@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>
>: >PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>: >Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
>
>
>: This deal could attract Linux hackers only if UnixWare came with complete
>: source code :-)
Don't hold your breath. How could any serious Unix based company
like Sun, Novell, Hp, etc.. afford to GIVE you a copy of their
source code???
>
>
>Uh... yeah... I don't exactly consider Linux --to--> Unixware as much of an
>upgrade. The only unix that I'd want to upgrade to is NeXTSTEP, which is
>already at home on my multi-boot system. Unixware is... well, its just not
>all that special and certainly not something too many informed people are
>going to select over Linux.
WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable. The fact
that you have access to your OS source code guarantees that
you will tinker with it and thus effectively make you and your
copy of Linux an island.
>
--Corey
/* Corey Brown (WB0RXQ): 20m, 15m, 2m(146.82) 70cm(443.65) */
/* AT&T NSD | co...@hustler.att.com */
/* Alpharetta, Ga 30202 | attmail!wcbrown */
/* (404)750-8071 */
--
From cbnews!corey Tue Oct 25 10:03 EDT 1994
Return-Path: <cbnews!corey>
Received: from hustler.alph.att.com by hotrod.att.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA19319; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 10:03:14 +0500
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <Cy9L3z.35n@byteware.com>
Sender: vl...@byteware.com (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
References: <1994Oct25.152000.9206@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 05:11:58 GMT
Lines: 30
Matt Welsh writes
> Linux is not just a "warm up" to a "real" UNIX system, as you seem to
> claim. It's a complete UNIX clone, a downright *replacement* for UnixWare.
> If you have Linux, you don't have to "step up" to anything else.
Now that X/Open is releasing the Spec1170 test suites, the claim that Linux
is a "complete UNIX clone" can finally be put to the test. Or should I say,
"put to rest", which is what a run-in with the X/Open test suites would do to
the Linux claims to the UNIX name.
Recognizing, on the other hand, that a fully Spec1170-compliant Linux would
be A Truly Good Thing, I will be the first to call for X/Open to donate a
single Spec1170 test suite to a neutral site of choice for the express
purpose of testing Linux compliance. Otherwise, I doubt that anyone will
come up with the $25,000 for each suite (there are three). The "neutral
site" would ideally be an academic site populated with sufficient skill to
perform the tests and communicate useful results back to the 'Net ... I'll
vote for my alma mater, MIT ...
As for Linux being a downright replacement for UnixWare, well, it lacks the
intelligent serial port drivers and extensive commercial software support
(from WordPerfect to Oracle) of the latter - and it doesn't run DOS and
Windows software like UnixWare. That's quite a bit of difference to a lot
of installations.
--
Jim Vlcek I came,
vl...@byteware.com I saw,
The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
Beautiful downtown St. Paul
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!molly!vlcek
From: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <Cy9MK2.3Bw@byteware.com>
Sender: vl...@byteware.com (James Vlcek)
Reply-To: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek)
Organization: The Black Box of Lowertown
References: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 05:43:13 GMT
Lines: 37
Actually, I'm a bit suprised at all the negative reaction to my suggestion.
Sure, I'd expected some of the frothing-at-the-mouth Linux zealots to abuse
the notion that someone might want to trade Linux up for another UNIX, but I
clearly underestimated the volume of this response.
Suprisingly few comp.unix.unixware readers responded to my suggestion, which
I still feel is a good one. (I know that few UnixWearers responded simply by
the dearth of reasonable responses.) I certainly hope that any Novellites
reading this thread won't be turned off to the idea by the largely negative
response. Linux, I feel, makes an excellent entry point for UnixWare by
virtue of providing a very inexpensive entry point to the fun - yes, I said
FUN - of using the power of UNIX. UnixWare can stand to benefit from this
opportunity.
I frankly discount the importance of the negative response from the Linux
newsgroup. Part of the charm of Linux is that it reminds many of us of the
days of yore, when we cheered for an operating system as we would a football
team: mindlessly, without really thinking "why?" But today it is a
Microsoft-dominated (some would say Microsoft-owned) world, and commercial
"legs" are what count in an operating system. UnixWare's got 'em; Linux, I'm
sorry, does not.
Beyond the "my Linux can beat up your UNIX" boasting, I'm quite sure there
are many more pragmatic Linux users who place productivity over
proselytizing. Who - more importantly - don't feel threatened by the notion
of someone trading their beloved up for a (*shudder*) commercial UNIX.
Indeed, they might just see that a progression through Linux to a commercial
UNIX would be a healthy state of affairs both for those who have to make
their living in this business, and for those who desire the freedom to kernel
hack to their heart's content. And that is a progression in which I would
hope UnixWare could play a key part.
--
Jim Vlcek I came,
vl...@byteware.com I saw,
The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
Beautiful downtown St. Paul
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!
psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!tom
From: t...@metronet.com (Tom Griffing)
Subject: New Suggestion: Trade-up, UnixWare => Linux
Message-ID: <Cy9AzM.95s@metronet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 01:33:22 GMT
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com> <danielCy8LGx.CBn@netcom.com>
<38jhpg$1cr@venus.mcs.com>
Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info)
Lines: 37
In article <38jhpg$...@venus.mcs.com>, Leslie Mikesell <l...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>In article <danielCy8LGx....@netcom.com>, Sam Daniel <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>What's the benefit to Linux users of switching to UnixWare? The last
>>time I looked at it, UnixWare was harder to install, less flexible in
>>the choice of supported devices,
>
>Ummm, with sysvr4 you have a selection of intelligent serial ports boards
>but not for Linux. Network terminal servers may be better
>for some circumstances but they tend to cost about twice as much
>per port. And, you can buy some supported commercial applications.
Intelligent serial boards?
How about DigiBoard and Cyclades? In addition, I spoke with
the Stallion service manager last week (I have two Stallion 32
port boards), and he said that they would be porting their
drivers soon :^)
Wake up people, it's getting SERIOUS!
How about a UnixWare to Linux upgrade for FREE? Get it from:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/Linux/distributions/slackware
Any less and you'd be getting paid to upgrade!
I'll be testing the new Linux kernel with the ELF Oracle
binaries soon ... it's the only thing keeping us from
converting.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ / /
/ Thomas L. Griffing / To invent, you need a good imagination /
/ t...@metronet.com / and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison /
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!ka4ybr!mah
From: m...@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Followup-To: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Organization: Mark Horton Associates
Message-ID: <1994Oct26.220741.24171@ka4ybr.com>
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:07:41 GMT
Lines: 44
Jim Vlcek (vl...@byteware.com) wrote:
: I don't know how well the current "Trade in your Old Tired Intel UNIX for a
: brand new UnixWare" campaign is going, but I've got an idea.
: We really need some of the committed UNIX followers in the UnixWare camp, if
: for no other reason than to ensure that the traditional UNIX freeware off the
: 'Net gets compiled for UnixWare. And what better source of such UNIX zealots
: than the Linux camp?
: I envision numerous side benefits from attracting Linux users. To start
: with, Linux could become an easy-entry path into UNIX by warming up the
: unconverted in preparation for UnixWare. The UnixWare community couldn't be
: hurt by exposure to some of the do-it-yourself spirit of the Linux community
: (hell, isn't that what UNIX is all about anyway?); we'd be picking up people
: who are probably more informed than average. It would not only help bring in
: freeware for UnixWare, but device driver writers and kernel tuners as well -
: and people accustomed to wedging UNIX onto an Intel box and figuring out what
: goes wrong along the way.
: Any comments?
Now let me get this straight.... The idea is for Linux users to
PAY $199.00 and give up their Linux CD for the privilege of writing
and donating to UnixWare the device drivers, ported applications,
and POSIX compliant features that they already have with Linux...
I somehow fail to see the logic in this approach. Would this not
be like giving your brand-new, working automobile plus your own
cash to someone in exchange for their broken-down automobile only to
spend your time and money and effort to fix said broken-down
automobile whereupon you give it back to the person you have given
your new automobile to (without getting yours back) for the privilege
of them then selling the automobile you have repaired back to you
for more money?
I guess this makes sense in some hitherto unknown-to-me sense of
the word "benefit." But not to me.... :)
--
"Linux! Guerrilla UNIX Development Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus."
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Horton ka4ybr m...@ka4ybr.atlanta.com
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 m...@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
+1.404.371.0291 : 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W m...@ka4ybr.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!
galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <1994Oct26.185324.25671@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <Cy8AIq.Gp2@news.cern.ch> <38j3tr$q5u@news.bu.edu>
<Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:53:24 GMT
Lines: 9
In article <Cy8vz7....@nntpa.cb.att.com> co...@hotrod.alph.att.com () writes:
> WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
> or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable.
I guess you never used earlier releases of Solaris 2.
What's laughable about it?
mdw
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!
cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <1994Oct26.191631.27437@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com> <Cy9MK2.3Bw@byteware.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:16:31 GMT
Lines: 47
In article <Cy9MK2....@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>I frankly discount the importance of the negative response from the Linux
>newsgroup. Part of the charm of Linux is that it reminds many of us of the
>days of yore, when we cheered for an operating system as we would a football
>team: mindlessly, without really thinking "why?" But today it is a
>Microsoft-dominated (some would say Microsoft-owned) world, and commercial
>"legs" are what count in an operating system.
I appreciate your opinion, but this is an overgeneralization, and an
incorrect one. Commercial legs "count" to whom? Microsoft dominates whom?
None of those things matter to me. I don't run a byte of commercial software
on my Linux system, and I couldn't be happier.
Yes, I'm not a multimillion-dollar corporation. I don't read INFO WORLD.
I'm a UNIX hacker who needs a fast, free operating system at home.
Yes, personal computing and commercial computing have different needs;
please be sure to qualify your statements one way or the other.
Yes, there are people out there who need commercial software; many
of them. And perhaps UnixWare does fit that bill more adequately than
Linux does. But don't generalize and claim that commercial software matters
to everyone. In my corner of the world, it matters none at all, and in fact
one of the ideas behind the free software movement it that it *shouldn't*
matter.
This doesn't mean that I'm abstaining from the use of commercial
software; not using commercial code certainly isn't a burden to me at
all. I just prefer free software to commercial software. I'd rather use
GNU gcc as opposed to a commercial C compiler any day---not by matter of
principle, but because gcc is technically superior.
You make the implicit claim that commercial software is necessary for
productivity. This is not the case. While some people have learned to
rely upon commercial software for productivity, many others are
turning to free software and finding that it meets their needs just
as well or better. And don't dismiss the issue of having source code
access---I add or modify features of the free software that I use
routinely. So much so that I would feel even more restricted by the
inability to do this with a commercial product.
Different people have different needs. Linux is not the end-all solution;
especially not for people who need commercial code. But neither is UnixWare
the solution for people who need free access to source and who really
prefer to hack. Please don't equate commercial software with productivity.
This may be true for some, but certainly not all.
mdw
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
jussieu.fr!jabba.fdn.org!uunet!world!entropy
From: entr...@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <CyBG1D.MDq@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com> <Cy9MK2.3Bw@byteware.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 05:17:37 GMT
Lines: 47
In article <Cy9MK2....@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
>Suprisingly few comp.unix.unixware readers responded to my suggestion, which
>I still feel is a good one. (I know that few UnixWearers responded simply by
>the dearth of reasonable responses.) I certainly hope that any Novellites
>reading this thread won't be turned off to the idea by the largely negative
>response. Linux, I feel, makes an excellent entry point for UnixWare by
>virtue of providing a very inexpensive entry point to the fun - yes, I said
>FUN - of using the power of UNIX. UnixWare can stand to benefit from this
>opportunity.
You still haven't stated why you believe there is any reason to "upgrade" to
UnixWare. If I have a RollsRoyce I got for free (sp?) and someone wants me
to upgrade to a toyota (because only cars you pay for are serious cars), why
shouldn't I question the unwritten assumption?
My living for the past two years has come entirely from Linux, I'm sorry
I think I have a right to question your assumptions about it.
>I frankly discount the importance of the negative response from the Linux
>newsgroup.
Discount all you want, you still haven't explained what benefit we would
get from switching to UnixWare. If you can't interest any Linux users then
there might be a slight flaw in your plan.
Let me make a suggestion:
Novell whose best interest you obviously have at heart should scrap
Unixware, and start providing support services for Linux. Novell has
one and only one thing over Linux, and thats advertising money, Novell
would do better to throw its resources behind the technically superior
OS, rather than ramming an inferior one down the throats of corporate
America.
>Part of the charm of Linux is that it reminds many of us of the
>days of yore, when we cheered for an operating system as we would a football
>team: mindlessly, without really thinking "why?" But today it is a
>Microsoft-dominated (some would say Microsoft-owned) world, and commercial
>"legs" are what count in an operating system. UnixWare's got 'em; Linux, I'm
>sorry, does not.
As I said Novell has advertising money. If I was going to worry about
advertising money over technical excellence then the obvious choice is
Microsoft.
--
------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-666-5555 talk to your own personal .
\ / skeptic 24 hours/day. Just say no to victimless crimes. . .
\ / High quality Linux application development available. . . .
\/ Violence is a lousy substitute for sex and drugs. . . . .
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!
news.hal.COM!olivea!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: co...@hotrod.alph.att.com ()
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <CyC2Cz.7G3@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: n...@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hotrod.alph.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com> <Cy9MK2.3Bw@byteware.com>
<CyBG1D.MDq@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:19:41 GMT
Lines: 69
In article <CyBG1D....@world.std.com>,
Lawrence Foard <entr...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <Cy9MK2....@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
>>Suprisingly few comp.unix.unixware readers responded to my suggestion, which
>>I still feel is a good one. (I know that few UnixWearers responded simply by
[Much deleted] ...
>Discount all you want, you still haven't explained what benefit we would
>get from switching to UnixWare. If you can't interest any Linux users then
>there might be a slight flaw in your plan.
>Let me make a suggestion:
> Novell whose best interest you obviously have at heart should scrap
> Unixware, and start providing support services for Linux. Novell has
> one and only one thing over Linux, and thats advertising money, Novell
> would do better to throw its resources behind the technically superior
> OS, rather than ramming an inferior one down the throats of corporate
> America.
WOW! Wait a minute, why don't you make a list of those items
in Linux that are "technically" superior to what is available
in UW, i.e. provide us with some proof of Linux superiority
before you make statements like this.
BTW. here is a short list of things that I like in UW that
I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
* Adjustable scheduler (real time, fair share, etc...)
* Veritas filesystem (journal based fault tolerant)
1) Disk mirroring, Disk Striping (sp)
2) On the fly expansion of filesystems
* Full SMP support (in the 2.0 release)
* Netware capable (for sharing of Netware resources etc...)
* BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
* C2 security
* Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
Plus the fact that I also have access to all the freeware
stuff that makes Linux such an excellent platform. Anything
that you can get for Linux (in source format) I can get for
UW also. Note I said "source" format, I wish I had "Doom"
for UW.
In my case I think the single biggest plus (in my eyes) is
the Veritas filesystem, which comes stock on UW even in
the PE package. The mirroring and striping you do not
get for free, if you want that it costs extra, but thems
the breaks.
Now, if my list of items is inaccurate please feel free
to correct me, but do it in a civil tone.
--Corey
>
>
>--
>------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-666-5555 talk to your own personal .
>\ / skeptic 24 hours/day. Just say no to victimless crimes. . .
> \ / High quality Linux application development available. . . .
> \/ Violence is a lousy substitute for sex and drugs. . . . .
--
/* Corey Brown (WB0RXQ): 20m, 15m, 2m(146.82) 70cm(443.65) */
/* AT&T NSD | co...@hustler.att.com */
/* Alpharetta, Ga 30202 | attmail!wcbrown */
/* (404)750-8071 */
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <CyE0MH.KoM@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <Cy8AIq.Gp2@news.cern.ch> <38j3tr$q5u@news.bu.edu>
<Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:37:29 GMT
Lines: 42
In article <Cy8vz7....@nntpa.cb.att.com> co...@hotrod.alph.att.com () writes:
> Don't hold your breath. How could any serious Unix based company
> like Sun, Novell, Hp, etc.. afford to GIVE you a copy of their
> source code???
I dunno - but the Linux community can and does, and not just give the
source code with a license, but give the lot away.
> WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
> or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable. The fact
Well apart from SunOS 4.1.x its the most stable system I've worked with.
I like 3 month uptimes, I like 8 users on a 386DX40 with 8Mb of RAM, source
code and superb free compiler and debugging tools.
> that you have access to your OS source code guarantees that
> you will tinker with it and thus effectively make you and your
> copy of Linux an island.
Strange idea. Believe me if I decided to redesign the production Linux boxes
here without a very good reason and lots of testing I'd be changing email
address pretty pronto. On the other hand when someone does screw up I don't
have to wait six months for a vendor fix. I don't get charged $200 for
an 'upgrade' to a bugfix in some of the tools either. I can go to a wide
variety of different consultants and say 'Set this up', and no vendor
lock in problems occur.
I'm not going to knock unixware - its not a bad product, its just a totally
different thing - a shrink wrapped application runner, 'Windows the Unix
edition' as it were. I want a machine that can bridge arbitary protocols,
file serve to unix (nfs), w4wg (lan manager) and appletalk at the same time,
handle email, X windows, slip etc. We have enough bad tech support experiece
to know that free tech support is useless and vendor tech support for money
is almost never cost effective. The only small problem I have is that to
access Novell servers I have to run Netx in a DOS window under Linux. Once
Undocumented Netware is out I suspect that'll get cured too.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <CyJH4A.C2G@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 13:21:46 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <Cy7sMI....@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>We really need some of the committed UNIX followers in the UnixWare camp, if
>for no other reason than to ensure that the traditional UNIX freeware off the
>'Net gets compiled for UnixWare. And what better source of such UNIX zealots
>than the Linux camp?
Why do you think committed freeware people would port freeware to a payware
system with non gnu compilers.
>why not then offer a PE+SDK bundle for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM? This package
>not only grants a new UnixWare hacker a full C compilation system for porting
>freeware to SVR4.2, but the inclusion of all those standard UNIX utilities in
>the SDK makes sure that the newly-converted feels fully at home as well.
C library source, kernel source and tools like MemChecker make me feel
at home. Single stepping the C library is great for finding your own bugs.
>Any comments?
I think you are a little naive. For the kind of people you are talking about
Unixware is a massive downgrade.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!dragon!holos0!lbr
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <1994Oct31.214756.9843@holos.com>
From: l...@holos.com (Len Reed)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:47:56 GMT
References: <Cy8vz7.C34@nntpa.cb.att.com> <Cy9MK2.3Bw@byteware.com>
<CyBG1D.MDq@world.std.com> <CyC2Cz.7G3@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Organization: none
Lines: 103
In article <CyC2Cz....@nntpa.cb.att.com>, <co...@hotrod.alph.att.com> wrote:
We used the Unixware application server here from the first of the year
until just a few weeks ago. We switched to Linux; the Unixware is
sitting on the shelf.
> BTW. here is a short list of things that I like in UW that
> I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
> * Adjustable scheduler (real time, fair share, etc...)
> * Veritas filesystem (journal based fault tolerant)
Okay, but our experiences with Unixware filesystems weren't great.
Our news filesystem kept reporting full even though it was half-empty.
No one could explain it.
> 1) Disk mirroring, Disk Striping (sp)
> 2) On the fly expansion of filesystems
> * Full SMP support (in the 2.0 release)
Could be useful to some. It seems to me that once you get to striping
and mirroring that maybe you shouldn't be running on PC hardware any more.
> * Netware capable (for sharing of Netware resources etc...)
Essential perhaps to some; worthless to others.
> * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
Ah, the train wreck (BSD+SysV). I've never found the SVR4 BSD emulation
to be anything but a headache. Xenix binaries running on Unixware are
troublesome. If I had to count on these things running I'd get a second
system.
> 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
I've always found STREAMS-based ttys to be a mess. Setting up the
port monitors just to get a dial-in modem working is awful on SVR4.
Pretty much no one outside of AT&T ever used TLI (even though it's
arguable a better model than sockets).
I've liked some features of STREAMS (it's supposed to be capitalized, BTW),
but it really seems big and cumbersome, too.
> * C2 security
Probably really important for some installations. For others, it results
in weird hooks in everything. It can be really tough to troubleshoot
upgrade and installation problems.
> * Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
> note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
Just what is an "industry standard" C++ compiler? Does this mean
anything other than "we charge money for it"?
> Plus the fact that I also have access to all the freeware
> stuff that makes Linux such an excellent platform. Anything
> that you can get for Linux (in source format) I can get for
> UW also.
Well, here Unixware falls far, far short of Linux. With Unixware, we
had to spend a ton of administrative time compiling every single thing
we wanted: Cnews, NNTP, perl, trn, RCS, zoo, zip, etc., etc. With
slackware, that stuff pretty much runs out of the box. It took weeks
to configure Unixware the way we wanted it; with Linux, it took days.
That is a big winner for Linux. Others are:
1) It's free. We can put it on our home machines and our laptops.
2) It runs on a very wide variety of PC hardware. Unixware is far
more restricted in its choice of video cards, SCSI cards, network
cards, and CD-ROM support. Linux runs nicely on several laptops.
3) It is far easier to do upgrades. When we upgraded from Unixware 1.0
to 1.1 the stupid installation trashed /etc/hosts, all namesever tables,
and some other customized tables. The entire installation was pretty-
much hidden from us (in contrast to being in tar files). This alledgedly
makes it possible for a non-techie to do the installation. Instead,
though, it screwed everything up and cost days of techie time since
we couldn't figure out what happened.
4) It's faster, at least in coming up.
5) Problems get fixed faster.
6) If I've really got an annoying problem I always have the source code.
7) I get quicker answers, better targeted at my level (technical) from
the linux newsgroups than I did from Novell.
8) Unixware is ugly to administrate because so much is hidden. This may--and
only may--mean that it's easier for a novice to administrate. But for
a expert Linux is way easier. I never did get a satisfactory boot
diskette with Unixware, i.e., one that allows me to boot, partition
the disk, and read in my backup tapes (to rebuild a stolen or dead
system). Novell SOLD me a recovery diskette (it didn't even come
with the $1000 system), but it doesn't really solve that problem.
With Linux, this is a snap.
9) The time I do throw away fooling with the system is more enjoyable to
me. I'd rather troubleshoot some code and fix it that sit on the phone
with someone far below my level of expertise and training while he
asks me dumb questions. Even if it adds up to the same amount of
wasted time, I'd rather debug and learn than try to get someone else
to figure out the problem.
--
Len Reed
l...@holos.com
Holos Software, Inc.
Voice: (404) 496-1358 ext. 16
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!
netnews.summit.novell.com!netnews.summit.novell.com!sfgfd!gfd
From: g...@summit.novell.com (George F Demarest)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: New Suggestion: Trade-up, UnixWare => Linux
Followup-To: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 31 Oct 1994 22:37:42 GMT
Organization: Novell
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <393rjm$d2b@bird.summit.novell.com>
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com> <danielCy8LGx.CBn@netcom.com>
<38jhpg$1cr@venus.mcs.com> <Cy9AzM.95s@metronet.com>
Reply-To: g...@summit.novell.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sfgfd.summit.novell.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Tom Griffing (t...@metronet.com) wrote:
: How about a UnixWare to Linux upgrade for FREE? Get it from:
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/Linux/distributions/slackware
cool. Get it, use it. I have absolutely no problems with Linux
and don't intend to foment any more squablling about this topic.
If I had anything that resembled spare time, I'd love to play
with Linux. As more people learn Unix, the world becomes a
better place in my mind.
: I'll be testing the new Linux kernel with the ELF Oracle
: binaries soon ... it's the only thing keeping us from
: converting.
I'd like to point out here, that until Novell placed ELF in the public
domain, this would not have been possible. There will be some other
interesting announcements in this vein in the coming months. Stay
tuned.
Now, down to the heart of the matter: how do we get DOOM ported to UW? :-)
gfd
: / / /
: / Thomas L. Griffing / To invent, you need a good imagination /
: / t...@metronet.com / and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison /
--
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
George Demarest g...@summit.novell.com
UnixWare Prod. Mktg. Mgr. (908) 522-6363
Novell, Inc.
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Message-ID: <CyLqFn.5Hs@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <CyC2Cz.7G3@nntpa.cb.att.com> <CyD2CG.5tx@byteware.com>
<newcombe.938.0194C5CE@aa.csc.peachnet.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 18:38:10 GMT
Lines: 74
Corey Brown writes
> [...] here is a short list of things that I like in UW that
> I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
>
> * Adjustable scheduler (real time, fair share, etc...)
Very adjustable. I got the source code. I can do anything I need for
special causes oh and better still I don't end up with every scheduler
in my kernel so I can switch around them. I can even pay a consultant
of choice to write me a new scheduler without them being stuck with no
source code.
> * Veritas filesystem (journal based fault tolerant)
> 1) Disk mirroring, Disk Striping (sp)
> 2) On the fly expansion of filesystems
I've never needed it but yes. I look forward to someone adding some of
these to Linux.
> * Full SMP support (in the 2.0 release)
Equally supposedly part of a Linux project going on now, and full kernel
thread support too. I see both are in the shops ;)
> * Netware capable (for sharing of Netware resources etc...)
Well thats only because Novell won't tell anyone their secret protocols
(open systems HA!). I got appletalk, lan manager (including browse and
long file names), and nfs. That does me. Windows comes with lan manager
clients by default, novell is a pain in the arse add on now. The only
reason Netware isn't in there is because its not documented. Once
undocumented netware is released its party time.
> * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
> 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
Try some throughput benchmarks and you'll change your mind about things
like stream pipes. The byte pipe benchmark shows Linux is twice as fast.
Perhaps you'd like to summarise the precise functionality improvment you
personally as a user see from the streams tty/pipes or TLI v BSD sockets.
> * C2 security
They had that ratified yet or like every other vendor do they merely claim
it. More to the point do you normally use it. Personally I'm much more
worried about does it ship with sendmail 8.6.9 +, tcp wrappers, pidentd,
a portmap withou the loopback nfs bug, and nothing like smail -D /etc/passwd.
Or at least if it doesnt they get fixed VERY VERY fast. I don't have a unixware
host handy to try the RCPT <|/etc/passwd> ignore error DATA ... etc and
smail hacks on. If you really want C2 then you cross of Linux and pick
another OS (or pay someone to write you the extensions). If you want source
code you cross off Unixware - no different.
> * Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
> note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
Its just been released for Linux (should be today if its on time). AT&T
Cfront port. As to debuggers - tgdb, UPS ?
The trouble with all this is you are missing the point of the what is better
argument - Linux and Unixware are _TOTALLY_ different tools for totally
different markets. Linux is a cheap effective server, freely
redistributable, no messy site licenses but no free tech support and some
competence needed. Unixware is a reasonably effective system for minimal
technical knowledge application running. I don't choose windows3 to run
critical systems, Unix for dedicated one user word processing or a Cray-2
to run simple accounts. Different job - different tools.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!
senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tytso
From: ty...@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: New Suggestion: Trade-up, UnixWare => Linux
Followup-To: comp.unix.unixware,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 6 Nov 1994 22:43:41 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <TYTSO.94Nov6174350@dcl.mit.edu>
References: <Cy7sMI.1M3@byteware.com> <danielCy8LGx.CBn@netcom.com>
<38jhpg$1cr@venus.mcs.com> <Cy9AzM.95s@metronet.com>
<393rjm$d2b@bird.summit.novell.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dcl.mit.edu
In-reply-to: gfd@summit.novell.com's message of 31 Oct 1994 22:37:42 GMT
In article <393rjm$...@bird.summit.novell.com> g...@summit.novell.com
(George F Demarest) writes:
I'd like to point out here, that until Novell placed ELF in the public
domain, this would not have been possible. There will be some other
interesting announcements in this vein in the coming months. Stay
tuned.
ELF (IBCS2) is a standard (which I thought was an initiative of AT&T and
Intel, but no matter). Even if it weren't in the public domain, it
wouldn't have mattered. For example, the POSIX standard isn't in the
public domain --- you have to pay obscene prices to buy the book --- yet
it hasn't stopped Linux and many other operating systems from being
POSIX compliant.
Now, down to the heart of the matter: how do we get DOOM ported to UW? :-)
Novell could ship a Linux binary emulator with UW, so that it can run
Linux native binaries. :-)
That way, UW could run Maple V, which will be shipping soon with a Linux
native port. (Actually, that's not fair; I don't know for sure that
MAPLE didn't do a UW port. They very may well have.) The point is,
though, some vendors are shipping Linux native binaries. And that's in
addition to the vendors who ship IBCS2 binaries, with the full knowledge
that they will be running on Linux instead of something like SCO....
- Ted
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
From: ja...@purplet.demon.co.uk (Mike Jagdis)
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
demon!purplet!jaggy
Subject: Re: Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Organization: FidoNet node 2:252/305 - The Purple Tentacle, Reading
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 23:41:00 +0000
Message-ID: <780.2EBD5188@purplet.demon.co.uk>
Sender: use...@demon.co.uk
Lines: 22
* In message <1994Oct31.214756.9...@holos.com>, Len Reed said:
LR> > * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
LR> Ah, the train wreck (BSD+SysV). I've never found the SVR4
LR> BSD emulation
LR> to be anything but a headache. Xenix binaries running on
LR> Unixware are
LR> troublesome. If I had to count on these things running I'd
LR> get a second system.
Of course, the iBCS emulator for Linux supports SVR3 and SVR4 programs,
knows the various incompatible "features" that certain vendors added to SVR3
(for long filename support etc.) and has Xenix 386 capability. Current
releases have "proof of capability" code for i386 BSD support (BSDI, 386bsd,
NetBSD, FreeBSD) although since there don't appear to be any BSD
applications I haven't bothered building on this base to date. The next
release will also include similar "proof of capability" for Xenix 286
binaries.
Mike