Suggested trade-up, Linux to UnixWare
Jim Vlcek
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
Dan Pop
>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
Drew Eckhardt
>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?
Most Linux users don't recompile their own binaries, since it's
simpler and quicker to pick up a $20 CD, or pull them down
via anonymous FTP.
>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?
Why would I spend $200 when the system I have now works at
least as well for me?
Stability? Linux boxes have stayed up for six months at a time,
with the final crash caused by a careless backhoe operator. I've
hit two months when I've ignored users' bug reports and hacked on
other projects instead.
Disk performance? With a NCR53c810 bus mastering SCSI controller, and
various contemporary disks, I can sustain 95% of head rate on writes
and 80% on reads, through the filesystem (this translates to 3.5-4.5M/sec
sustained with many modern drives).
Network performance? FTP throughput hits a sustained 920K/sec
on a clean net between my Linux box and RS6000. NFS isn't
too hot due to the absence of client side caching, but at 300K/sec
with 8K blocks it's palatable.
Interactive feel? Linux has a fully unified buffer cache and user
memory pool, meaning when memory load isn't high, a reasonable 32M
system will back 16M of disk cache. When processes awake from
I/O wait, they are run immediately rather than ending up on the
tail of a run queue, meaning interactive response is still good
when there are a few CPU bound processes running.
Toys? Unixware doesn't have a native DOOM port, doesn't have the audio
that comes with Linux, and binaries for things like the MPEG+audio
player are going to be harder to come by.
Support? With Linux, I don't need support. If something breaks,
I'll fix it. If I can't, I can allways opt for the $500 guaranteed
bug fix program. With Unixware, I have neither of those options.
Licensing? With Linux, I can give any and all of my friends
copies, can have as many user IDs, ptys, or whatever logged
in and once, and don't have to screw with it.
Linux has it's shortcomings - the scheduler needs to be
gutted and replaced, some devices aren't supported, SysV binary
compatability isn't complete yet, WINE is just a toy, and DOS
Emu barely functional, but they don't have a significant effect
on most of the Linux users, giving them little reason to switch.
>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?
No. For most Linux users, Linux does the same things better
for 0-25% of the cost.
>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 -
Why?
Linux lets us play with _all_ of the kernel, including the memory
manager, buffer cache, and scheduler, as well as device drivers.
With device drivers, we're free to look at the code that was
allready written, rather than starting from scratch as we'd have
to if we only had .o files. We like the modern features (such as
the fully unified user memory pool/buffer cache, a more useful /proc
than SysV, etc) that aren't present in Unixware. Linux development
is open, so interested users have access to the latest features,
bug fixes, and hacks as they happen and not months after the
fact.
I'll hack on Unixware when one of the following happens
1. Novell sends me a full source tree, which proves to be
more interesting than the Linux kernel at that time.
or
2. Expose is resurected and Unixware ends up using a Linux
kernel.
--
Since our leaders won't respect The Constitution, the highest law of our
country, you can't expect them to obey lesser laws of any country.
Boycott the United States until this changes.
M. K. Shenk
>brand new UnixWare" campaign is going, but I've got an idea.
>
>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
Probably because such a move would not be a 'trade-up.' Hey, I guess
they have some integrity!
>
>PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
Probably for Novell, certainly not for the Linuxer. What exactly is the
Linuxer's motivation?
>
>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
This is a troll, right? "warming up" for UnixWare? ROTFL.
>
>Any comments?
>
I think you're a-cruisin' for a bruisin! ;-)
Bryony Bechtold
: >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 :-)
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.
Sam Daniel
>...
>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?
>...
>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?
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, bug-ridden, and poorly supported by
Novell (at the corporate level; the tech support people seemed to be
trying very hard). Updates were far apart, bugs were rampant, and
users (to judge from the net traffic) were very upset.
Linux is open in the best sense of the word. Source code for
everything is freely available, giving me an endless opportunity to
study. Updates are quick to arrive when a problem is identified, and
it's possible to talk directly to the developers when necessary.
There is no doubt that Linux is approaching the stability required for
real production use; indeed, some net folk have been using it that way
for a while now. Linux supports nearly any device that can be plugged
in, thanks to the large number of developers involved.
IMHO, about the only real advantage that UnixWare enjoys is the level
of documentation that's available. I think that's an advantage that
will disappear over the next year or so.
I think Unixware users should seriously consider switching over to
Linux. Linux+GNU+X11R6, at prices from $0 to $50, doesn't that just
make all the sense in the world? :-) :-)
--
Sam Daniel -- dan...@netcom.com -- (408) 235-2661
Tony Porczyk
>PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
From the Novell's point of view, it would be a no-lose situation.
However, already PE is sold retail for $175 (admittedly, without
SDK), so perhaps the offer should be even sweeter (remember, you're
trading server for PE), say $149? Take example from MS ...
>Any comments?
A number of Linux users I know use it in a server role - PE wouldn't
do. Provide some path for "server to server" upgrade. Also, do not
forget FreeBSD & NetBSD CD-ROMs.
Finally, unless the AS price takes a serious dive, it will never gain
ground with some users (and I don't know if it's possible for
cross-licensing reasons). I use Linux (and am tinkering with FreeBSD
now) for end-user training, and the ability to install servers anywhere
you go without worrying about $x,xxx. prices each is a major winner
for the free variety.
The idea of upgrades is interesting, however.
t.
Leslie Mikesell
>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.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Ricardo Kleemannn
I agree. If you consider Linux-to->Unixware a trade-up, then I guess I
traded "down"! Last year I shelled out about $150 to buy UnixWare, and
was not very impressed. They even sent me a free upgrade to version 1.1,
which I installed, and still was not impressed. I encountered many bugs
before AND after installation (at least I installed from CDROM, which
takes a little of the pain away). I tried customer support for a couple
of problems, but also wasn't impressed. Their X server is horrible!
Slow, no help or documentation. Luckily I had also purchased a GNU utilities
CDROM which also had the XFree86 server, and installed that instead of
using the UnixWare server. Their H/W support + drivers is very lacking.
Thank God for Linux's H/W compatibility and abundant "online" help thru
the NET. I was very disappointed with UnixWare, its bugs and its
performance, and came about Linux in one of those popular Computer
Shows. I saw a copy of Yggdrasil Linux (Fall of 93 version) for $15.
I thought, "Why not just give it a try?". Soon I was backing up all my
work and removing UnixWare. The disks and CDROMS are stored away, and now
I'm a happy Linuxer. Have not encountered any bugs, and performance
is better. All my hardware is supported (with UnixWare, my Adaptec
controller wasn't supported, and I had to shell out another $70 to buy
a Future Domain card; now I'm back to the Adaptec).
Please don't be fooled by all the UnixWare ads; I was, and regretted it.
At least if youre going to make a mistake, make it for $15-$30 (or even
free!).
Matt Welsh
>
>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
Michael Babcock
The one thing you forgot to mention was WHY I would want to trade linux for
unixware -- even for free, much less $200.
Michael_Nelson
-> 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?
{snip}
-> Any comments?
I don't think it'd be successful. I switched FROM Unixware TO
Linux and couldn't be happier. The same is true of two of my
customers... they are also glad they made the switch.
- Michael -
--
Michael Nelson nel...@seahunt.imat.com
San Francisco, CA FAX: 1-415-621-2608
co...@hotrod.alph.att.com
>Dan Pop (dan...@cernapo.cern.ch) wrote:
>: In <Cy7sM...@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
Orc
In article <Cy7sM...@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
>PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
Well, perhaps if you're already running UnixWare, but if you
are, why bother?
____
david parsons \bi/ Now PE+SDK+$199 in exchange for a Linux CD-ROM -- that
\/ I'd go for.
Michael Babcock
> WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
> or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable. The fact
You've got to be kidding. Have you actually tried linux, or just been misled
by propaganda?
> that you have access to your OS source code guarantees that
> you will tinker with it and thus effectively make you and your
WOW! That's some incredible logic there. I'm amazed! How is this possibly true?
M. K. Shenk
> WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
> or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable. The fact
Why? Because it sounds laughable? I don't think you use Linux, am I
right?
Jim Vlcek
> In <Cy7sM...@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 :-)
Not really. Already, one can obtain the PE for $166 and the SDK for $69, for
a grand total of $235. To go the Linux route, you're shelling out $199 for
PE+SDK, and $20-$40 for the Linux CD-ROM plus twice shipping, and you're
going to wait twice as long and fill out twice as many orders.
Jim Vlcek
> >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?
>
> Most Linux users don't recompile their own binaries, since it's
> simpler and quicker to pick up a $20 CD, or pull them down
> via anonymous FTP.
Well, someone had to compile them off the 'net to begin with.
Actually, UnixWare doesn't really lack for precompiled binaries. What I'd
like to see happen is that the hacker community starts kicking its BSD
addiction, so that the (many) users wanting SVR4 binaries don't have to wade
through all kinds of Berkruftlix to get things built.
> Stability? Linux boxes have stayed up for six months at a time,
> with the final crash caused by a careless backhoe operator. I've
> hit two months when I've ignored users' bug reports and hacked on
> other projects instead.
Sounds ominous. If you do real work, as opposed to kernel debugging, then
Linux disintegrates after two months?
> Support? With Linux, I don't need support. If something breaks,
> I'll fix it.
Sounds like: If something breaks, you have to fix it. You've got two months.
> Linux lets us play with _all_ of the kernel, including the memory
> manager, buffer cache, and scheduler, as well as device drivers.
> With device drivers, we're free to look at the code that was
> allready written, rather than starting from scratch as we'd have
> to if we only had .o files. [...]
Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
I can place my application.
Jim Vlcek
> A number of Linux users I know use it in a server role - PE wouldn't
> do. Provide some path for "server to server" upgrade.
A worthy idea, but of course not likely due to the pricing of the AS. For
this, one could expect that customers _would_ buy the Linux CD-ROM merely to
achieve the savings on the AS.
> Also, do not
> forget FreeBSD & NetBSD CD-ROMs.
Good point; all the well-known BSD derivatives should be included as well.
Since BSD has become almost an addiction for some, a few may argue against
the notion of buying drugs from the users, but I'm not one to get hung up on
such fine points of principle.
> Finally, unless the AS price takes a serious dive, it will never gain
> ground with some users (and I don't know if it's possible for
> cross-licensing reasons). I use Linux (and am tinkering with FreeBSD
> now) for end-user training, and the ability to install servers anywhere
> you go without worrying about $x,xxx. prices each is a major winner
> for the free variety.
This is an interesting point. Actually, I don't think that even the $1000
price for the AS is all that much for a serious installation - but the
ability to leave behind a minimally usable demo is quite handy, I can see.
Jim Vlcek
> 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 agree. If you consider Linux-to->Unixware a trade-up, then I guess I
> traded "down"! Last year I shelled out about $150 to buy UnixWare, and
> of problems, but also wasn't impressed.
*shrug* I've been impressed by no one's customer support. I've almost
universally gotten better results from the Internet, which - as I understand
it - is the customer support mechanism for Linux as well.
> Their X server is horrible!
This has changed quite a bit in the past year, largely due to the efforts of
the mysterious Kumar who periodically shows up in comp.unix.unixware to
announce drivers for yet another accelerated graphics board.
As I've seen so often posted with regard to features lacking in UnixWare:
give it a bit of time, and usually things get fixed.
Jim Vlcek
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.
Dan Pop
>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>I can place my application.
Then, try a production version of Linux (1.0.x) not a beta test one (1.1.x).
Dan Pop
>As I've seen so often posted with regard to features lacking in UnixWare:
>give it a bit of time, and usually things get fixed.
A Linux fan could say exactly the same thing about Linux :-)
So, what's your point?
Christian Hastedt-Marckwardt
Very good idea. Is any of the marketing folks listening? For my point of view
UnixWare is by far not enough being pushed into the market !
I never understood why Unix had to be that expensive and that hard
to manage for average people thus ignoring a big market - especially
since Unix has had the networking features for a long time now.
Now there came UnixWare and made a good price plus makes it easier
to manage the system. What is really missing - as I said - is the pushing
into the market.
Therefore, I like the idea. But there should be more activities.
--
Christian S. Hastedt-Marckwardt # Internet: c...@sietec.de
Sietec - PRO 12 # Phone: +49 30 386-28235
Nonnendammallee 101 # Fax: +49 30 386-27402
D-13629 Berlin
Germany
Dan Pop
>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'm affraid this is only your feeling, based mostly on thin air. How many
Linux users who switched to UnixWare do you know?
>
>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.
The Linux world is not dominated by Microsoft in any way. Most Linux users
are people who don't like MS products and found Linux a better alternative
for their PC hardware. Those who like MS products will never switch to
any Unix version, be it commercial or free. But, some Linux users are
people who don't like commercial Unix implementations for PC's and
switched from UnixWare or SCO to Linux. The number of people who switched
from Linux to a commercial Unix is extremely small, because those who
don't like Linux usually switch to *BSD.
>
>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.
Yes, that's precisely why they're using Linux and not a commercial Unix :-)
co...@hotrod.alph.att.com
I couldn't have said it better Jim. Thank you bringing some
reality back into this thread.
Everytime I read a squabble between a Linux user and the
rest of the world it reminds me of the incredible flaming
that used to take place (probably still does) between
comp.os.os2 and comp.os.win32 (or whatever the NT group was).
>
>--
>Jim Vlcek I came,
>vl...@byteware.com I saw,
>The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
>Beautiful downtown St. Paul
--Corey
--
Damien P. Neil
>Ricardo Kleemannn writes
>*shrug* I've been impressed by no one's customer support. I've almost
>universally gotten better results from the Internet, which - as I understand
>it - is the customer support mechanism for Linux as well.
This has almost nothing to do with Unixware or Linux, but I just felt I'd
like to comment on what I consider good support.
I bought my first IBM PC clone about two and a half years ago. Before
then, I'd been using an Amiga. I ended up buying DR-DOS to run on it
instead of MS-DOS. (At the time, I hadn't realized there was such a thing
as Linux, or Unixware, or *BSD* for '86s, etc...)
Rather quickly, however, I found myself experiencing rather bizzare
filesystem problems. (Directories where I couldn't get a directory listing,
but still could access files, if I remember correctly.) I called Digital
Research's tech support line (a toll call), got a recorded message telling
me that tech support was now being handled through Novell (which had just
bought DR) -- a toll free call, and called Novell tech support.
It took me maybe 5-6 minutes to get through Novell's phone system to tech
support -- not too bad, when I had seen 45 minute waits on a toll call to
companies such as Borland. The tech support guy (technical supporter?)
who I was connected to then spent three quarters of an hour on the phone
with me, a kid who had made a $99 purchase, and wasn't likely to be back
for major repeat business in the future. We finally tracked the problem
down -- a memory conflict between my memory manager (QEMM), and DR-DOS's
included disk compression software. After excluding a few bytes of memory,
I never saw the problem again.
Moral of the story? One: Don't use an operating system which allows
conflicts like that to happen. :> Two: There is such a thing as good
technical support. I have no real intention of buying anything in
particular from Novell in the future (I use Linux now), and I don't know
if that call was an atypical case. I do know that they impressed me that
day.
- Damien
Mark A. Davis
>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.
Well said. And the statement applies to SCO Unix, and Solaris too.
Heaven forbid people are given more choices..... Personally, I use SCO,
Solaris, AND Linux; all have their stong points, all are neat, and all
are useful to us.
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk,VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
| Director/SysAdmin | Information Systems | ma...@taylor.infi.net |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
M. K. Shenk
>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.
Gee, and they mostly look to be very reasonable. Rather than assuming
that they could possibly mean something, you now speak of 'frothing-at-the-
mouth Linux zealots.' You got our opinion. You don't like it. Now we're
'frothing'. Go home.
(Yes, I am now finished being nice to you. Your idiocy, rather than your
suggestion, has made this the case. #define FROTHING)
>
>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
You really mean "dearth of responses agreeing with you", right? Gee, they
seemed pretty reasonable to me. Oh, and you "know" why other UnixWare
types didn't respond. Just like you "know" our motives here. Ever
think that maybe other UnixWare users think you're an idiot as well?
>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.
Oh, get off it. You've been turned to the BIZZNESS side. Fun my ass,
"trade-up" man.
What you fail to understand is that Linux is not merely an 'entry point'..
People are out there doing serious work on it. How hackerish one's own
implementation is depends on the user. It is possible to have a very
stable platform to do work on. I personally mess around with mine quite a
bit, and I will tell you honestly that I have never had a single crash
where the OS was at fault. In fact, the only times I've ever had to
reboot were for kernel upgrades (voluntary, I like to run the latest ALPHA
kernel so I can report bugs. Funny, I've never run into one. And this is
ALPHA in the Linux world.) and because I locked up the SCSI bus with a
program I'm writing that was braindead at the time. It just grabbed the
bus and didn't let go. I've been running Linux for a year or so. Now,
can you address this comment on the stability of Linux, or are you just
going to ignore it and describe us as 'frothing- at-the-mouth'? What, are
we lying? This is a true statement. Address it.
>
>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
Boy, perhaps there is a reason you are not getting a decent response.
Frankly, your attitude sucks.
>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
Why? because it's good. Don't project your thoughtlessness onto us. I
have a very good idea why I use Linux.
>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.
And the exact reason this is true is that people assume it is. The only
reason. If you're paying attention to the Linux world, all of a sudden
a bunch of hardware and commecial software folks are expressing
interest. A BUNCH. You have summed up a good reason exactly. It is a
Microsoft dominated world. There is a legitimate opportunity here to
prove that the merit of an OS is what is important, rather than its
commerciality. So you advocate running to a commercial alternative
that is merely 'not as bad' as a Microsoft one. How ambitious.
Obviously what counts for YOU is commerciality. What counts for us is
merit. Some people here are saying that they think UnixWare is a piece
of crap. Ever consider that that's what they actually think?
Ever hear of TeX, by the way?
>
>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.
Almost finished with that straw man? Now you can beat him. Look, the
only ground you have to stand on is the motives you are projecting onto
the Linux crowd. If you can find me a commercial Unix that is better than
Linux, and *includes source*, I don't give a shit if it's commercial or
not. A lot of others here would probably agree. It's not '(*shudder*)
commercial UNIX.' It's '(*shudder*) a piece of crap that crashes and I
can't fix or modify.' Sure if you like to buy cars with a lock that only
the dealer can open on your hood, be my guest. If you are willing to
be meekly shorn of your ability to know what is going on and change it,
go right ahead. Spend time on the phone waiting for the provider to
tell you they have no plans to fix your bug any time soon. Be entirely
dependent. This seems to make you feel warm and fuzzy. We'll pass.
THIS is a primary reason people run Linux and FreeBSD/386BSD.
>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
You again fail to understand that many of us honestly do not feel this
to be a progression. Your tactic is to write off anyone who does not
agree with you.
>their living in this business, and for those who desire the freedom to kernel
Ahh, there it is. BIZZNESS. I knew it. "Be practical." "Aw, you know
that silly little Linux thing isn't going anywhere." Certainly
not if we cop out as you advise. We like our OS. For valid reasons.
And it seems to be going somewhere. "Practicality" is not an immovable
obstacle that we must kowtow to or be idiots. What is practical is
changeable. We're trying to change it. "Be reasonable/practical" always
really means "Do what I want. It's easier."
Fact is, right now I'll bet there are more Linux users than UnixWare users.
If things stay that way, I think I know where the commercial types will
be looking to sell their hardware/software. People who admin at work
are running Linux at home/moving it to work. Hundreds of college
students who are now hacking Linux will be admins in several years.
We're doing fine, thanks.
>hack to their heart's content. And that is a progression in which I would
>hope UnixWare could play a key part.
Listen. You come in here with a patronizing attitude: "ohh, Linux, isn't
that cute--would you like to play with daddy's UnixWare instead?" and
expect a friendly response. I am personally amazed that it was as civil
as it seems to have been. Frankly, you are an idiot. Not because you
advocate a move from Linux. Because you are. I'm sure that changing
my motives for me will be an essential part of your strategy in responding.
Don't even think about it. We have given you our real reasons for choosing
Linux over other things. Several have said they used UnixWare FIRST and
moved to Linux and really prefer it. Address this. By writing off
any responses that you don't like, you are advertising that you cannot.
It's real obvious that UnixWare is YOUR pet, as you claim Linux is ours.
Distressed that it's not going anywhere, huh? Well, we're having fun
over here in Linuxland. Don't forget to write. On second thought...
>
>--
>Jim Vlcek I came,
>vl...@byteware.com I saw,
>The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
>Beautiful downtown St. Paul
Now wipe. ^
Michael_Nelson
-> Actually, I'm a bit suprised at all the negative reaction to my
-> suggestion.
Oh, sure, Jim, I believe that. NOT! You'd have to be a real
Usenet newbie not to recognize such a juicy chunk of flamebait.
-> 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
-> clearly underestimated the volume of this response.
Perhaps because you crossposted it to comp.os.linux.misc? You
got responses from several folks who converted FROM Unixware TO
Linux... these are folks who have experienced both environments and
made an informed decision to make the switch based on a number of
factors. But in your mind ("please don't confuse me with facts, I
already have my mind made up"), these inputs seem to be invalid.
It was an unworkable, unattractive proposal, and you got
responses that were appropriate.
-> I frankly discount the importance of the negative response from the Linux
-> newsgroup.
Suprise, suprise!!
Martin Sohnius
: I'll hack on Unixware when one of the following happens
: 1. Novell sends me a full source tree, which proves to be
: more interesting than the Linux kernel at that time.
: or
: 2. Expose is resurected and Unixware ends up using a Linux
: kernel.
On this note, we can put this thread to rest, I believe. :-)
--
+----------------------------------+
Martin Sohnius | "If you can't be funny, |
Novell Labs Europe | at least be interesting." |
Bracknell, England | - Harold W. Ross |
+44-1344-724031 +----------------------------------+
(I speak for myself, not for Novell or anyone else.)
Tom Griffing
>In article <danielCy...@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 /
Ed Hall
: Jim Vlcek (vl...@byteware.com) wrote:
: -> Actually, I'm a bit suprised at all the negative reaction to my
: -> suggestion.
: Oh, sure, Jim, I believe that. NOT! You'd have to be a real
: Usenet newbie not to recognize such a juicy chunk of flamebait.
Amen. I long ago realized never to expect rational discourse on the
subject of "favorite OSes." Given that a UnixWare vs. Linux flamefest
seems to break out monthly, I don't see how Jim could have expected
anyone who actually had made a dispassionate UnixWare/Linux analysis
to post. Such a person isn't likely to dive headfirst into a mass
of true believers.
-Ed Hall
edh...@rand.org
RNA
>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>I can place my application.
God you're an idiot.
Excuse me, but you are.
I'm quite happy to let others mess around in the kernel, I simply _use_
Linux. And I bet most people are like this.
That the sources is available doesn't mean you _have_ to hack it. Not
at all. I choose not to, I don't remotely have to, my system is great
and provides me with utility out the wazoo. Linus and the kernel
wizards are brilliant, and so is Pat Volkerding (is my Slackware showing?).
But it does mean that hundreds, maybe thousands of creative people
_can_ hack the kernel if they want. And if their innovation has merit,
other hackers will try it. And if they judge it cool, it will eventually
make its way to a new version of the official kernel, and we will all
benefit. What's the size of the Novell Unixware development team?
The idea of Linux being a "baby Unixware" is not only ludicrous, it's
insulting. Linux is great. Not just "great for a free OS", but great
period.
If it's not your flavor of the month, fine, stay with Unixware. But
don't try to make it out that if we could only afford it we would move
to Unixware. I can easily afford it, and I feel not the slightest
desire to even try it.
Yeah, Linux provides a great path for anyone stuck on Microsoft to
try Unix. But guess what? If they decide they like it, I doubt they'll
move to Unixware, or SCO, or whatever, unless there is a specific
application they need that is only available under that flavor. And
that is less and less likely as more commercial stuff gets released
for Linux.
RNA
Leslie Mikesell
>Intelligent serial boards?
>
>How about DigiBoard and Cyclades?
How about them? Does Digi have Linux drivers for the EISA CX boards I've
been using under svr4 for over a year now? Does Cyclades support >30 ports
with h/w flow control?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Michael_Nelson
-> In utilizing/maintaining my Linux system I:
-> b. Apply Linus's official patches periodically to keep up
-> with the latest release.
-> c. Apply others un-offical patches to get the functionality
-> I need.
I do both b and c, with c only very occasionally.
-> I respect to the following UNIX varient (Select One)
-> a. SunOS 4.1.x
-> b. SunOS 5.x (aka Solaris)
-> c. AIX
-> d. Ultrix
-> e. OSF/1
-> f. SCO
-> g. IRIX
-> h. Other UNIXWARE
-> I find that Linux is:
-> Stable Robust Supported
-> a. More/Better a a a+
-> b. About As
-> c. Less/Poorer
Lewis Tanzos
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 :^)
Did the DigiBoard drivers get announced yet?
--
Lewis Tanzos - lj...@ds9.lesn.lehigh.edu - lj...@lehigh.edu
Drew Eckhardt
>> >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?
>>
>> Most Linux users don't recompile their own binaries, since it's
>> simpler and quicker to pick up a $20 CD, or pull them down
>> via anonymous FTP.
>
>Well, someone had to compile them off the 'net to begin with.
>
>> with the final crash caused by a careless backhoe operator. I've
>> hit two months when I've ignored users' bug reports and hacked on
>> other projects instead.
>
>Sounds ominous. If you do real work, as opposed to kernel debugging, then
>Linux disintegrates after two months?
No, the overwheling temptation to poke at the kernel kicks in.
>> Support? With Linux, I don't need support. If something breaks,
>> I'll fix it.
>
>Sounds like: If something breaks, you have to fix it. You've got two months.
Which, of course is better than the alternative I've gotten with most
vendors : bug don't get fixed.
>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>I can place my application.
That sounds a lot like Linux to me.
--
Since our leaders won't respect The Constitution, the highest law of our
country, you can't expect them to obey lesser laws of any country.
Boycott the United States until this changes.
Leslie Mikesell
>Actually, UnixWare doesn't really lack for precompiled binaries. What I'd
>like to see happen is that the hacker community starts kicking its BSD
>addiction, so that the (many) users wanting SVR4 binaries don't have to wade
>through all kinds of Berkruftlix to get things built.
Or, now that someone with some business sense owns the sysv code base maybe
some of the non-berkruft stuff could just go away... How many networkable
lp* protocols do we need, after all? How many different network listener
daemons? And what do you do with network interface layers that don't let
you find the name of an inbound caller?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
David Boyd
> WOW! Thats being pretty critical! To say that Linux is as robost
> or more robust than a full blown SVR4 is laughable. The fact
> you will tinker with it and thus effectively make you and your
> copy of Linux an island.
>
I just couldn't resist commenting on this. I have worked on almost every
commercial UNIX at one time or another (Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, OSF, SCO).
I currently run Linux at home. Linux is easily as robust as any of these
from my viewpoint. As far as stability (unexpected crashes) it competes
easily with commercial UNIXs and far surpasses many early revisions
of these UNIXs (anyone remember the instability of SunOS 4.0 or early
AIX versions?). At least with Linux when I post a problem to the net
I get answers, unlike a certain major UNIX vendor's support desk that
couldn't even understand the problems I tried to report. This is not
to say Linux doesn't need improvement. Without getting into kernel
guts level changes, the biggest thing missing is better shared library
support (And that is in alpha/beta test now with the ELF code). ALthough,
A few more COTS applications (GISs, WP, Spreadsheets) (please no flames
about GRASS, EZ, Oleo etc. I am aware of these but I still boot MESSY DOG
and WINDOZs so I can run Word and Excel). would be nice,
remember the current production release is only 1.0.9 so I suspect that
we will start seeing some more COTS offerings in time. If we don't I
expect some ambitious Linux hacker will come up with something.
With respect to the comment about having access to the Kernel source
garenteeing you will tinker with it and create A new version I would like
to take a small poll (if the net is interested). I believe that the
majority of Linux users hardly touch the kernel other than to apply
patches for new versions as Linus releases them. So here is the
question.
In utilizing/maintaining my Linux system I:
a. Use a stock kernel off what release I have installed.
b. Apply Linus's official patches periodically to keep up
with the latest release.
c. Apply others un-offical patches to get the functionality
I need.
d. Generate my own custom patches/changes.
I expect some people will fall into multiple categories and some people
who use Linux in the business world fall may fall somewhere in between
some of these cases. If I receive enough responses I will tabulate
and summarize them for the net.
In fact lets expand the poll somewhat. What about the following questions?
I respect to the following UNIX varient (Select One)
a. SunOS 4.1.x
b. SunOS 5.x (aka Solaris)
c. AIX
d. Ultrix
e. OSF/1
f. SCO
g. IRIX
h. Other __________
I find that Linux is:
Stable Robust Supported
a. More/Better
b. About As
c. Less/Poorer
This is just a first cut and many other questions areas could be addressed.
Although, a net poll like this is hopelessly un-scientific and biased (unless
I were to post to other groups) it may provide some usefull indicators.
Maybe, we could get one of the trade mags (Open Systems, Advanced Systems,etc)
to help with such a poll. Even, better - how about getting this cleaned
up and printed then distributing at the big conference coming up in
DC next month. (It used to be called Fed Unix, but the name has changed
and there is a whole seperate mini-conference on Linux).
What about it guys?? (Now where did I put my flame proof underware).
--
David W. Boyd UUCP: uunet!sparky!dwb
Sterling Software ITD INTERNET: Dave...@Sterling.COM
1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South Phone: (402) 291-8300
Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 FAX: (402) 291-4362
I survived - Seoul Sea of Fire Tour 94
Jim Vlcek
> As enscripted by Rob Janssen:
> >
> > Of course. Linux is not an "Old Tired Intel UNIX".
> I take it the word you take issue with is UNIX. This may or may not be
> true in the future. X/Open have defined a spec by which an[y] O/S may
> use the trademark UNIX if they comply. There is nothing stopping Linux
> as well as NT (shudder) from complying and using the TM "UNIX".
While it would be Very Nice Indeed if Linux achieved Spec1170 compliance,
there is little reason to fear NT doing likewise. NT's emasculated POSIX
subsystem exists for one purpose only: to satisfy POSIX 1003.1 buying
requirements of the US Government. It falls far short (and I do mean far) of
meeting Spec1170 compliance, and always will.
Barry Flanagan
: vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
: >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.
: Well said. And the statement applies to SCO Unix, and Solaris too.
: Heaven forbid people are given more choices..... Personally, I use SCO,
: Solaris, AND Linux; all have their stong points, all are neat, and all
: are useful to us.
We currently use the same three, but the only reason we hang onto SCO and
Solaris is for one particular application each - as soon as we can do away
with those we'll do away with Solaris/SCO.
The only reason we are still dependant upon SCO and Solaris is that, at the
time we installed, we were unsure of the stability of Linux. Since that time
Linux has proven itself to be at least as stable as SCO (which, fair dues,
only goes down when we hit the red button) and certainly much more so than
Solaris 2.1.
If our needs were different, I might determine that SCO or Unixware were for
us, but as it is our x86 Unix requirments are more than filled by Linux and
I would see no benefit in "upgrading" to anything else.
-Barry Flanagan
--
***********************************************************************
IRELAND ON-LINE, West Wing, Furbo, Galway, Ireland
Tel: +353 (0)91 592727 : Fax: +353 (0)91 592726
IOL Internet Services - Dublin: 671-5185 : Galway 592711
Mark A. Horton KA4YBR
: I don't know how well the current "Trade in your Old Tired Intel UNIX for a
: 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
Mark A. Davis
>David Boyd (d...@ITD.Sterling.COM) wrote:
>-> I respect to the following UNIX varient (Select One)
>-> a. SunOS 4.1.x
>-> b. SunOS 5.x (aka Solaris)
>-> c. AIX
>-> d. Ultrix
>-> e. OSF/1
>-> f. SCO
>-> g. IRIX
>-> h. Other UNIXWARE
>-> I find that Linux is:
>-> Stable Robust Supported
>-> a. More/Better a a a+
>-> b. About As
>-> c. Less/Poorer
This is silly.
There is no qualification as to how much each is used or what environment.
There is no mention how long each was used, or a guideline for definition
of extremely subjective terms. There is also no mention of exactly which
packages are being compared, and in what configurations.
I suggest the topic be dropped or moved to email.
Matt Welsh
> 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
Michael_Nelson
-> On this note, we can put this thread to rest, I believe. :-)
Yes, when one is losing the debate, retreat always looks like an
attractive alternative... ;-)
Matt Welsh
>I frankly discount the importance of the negative response from the Linux
>team: mindlessly, without really thinking "why?" But today it is a
>"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
Lawrence Foard
>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?
Why would I want to switch from Linux to Unixware?
Why bother porting everything to UnixWare when Linux already has it?
Upgrading to Linux from UnixWare is free after all :)
--
------ 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. . . . .
Lawrence Foard
> like Sun, Novell, Hp, etc.. afford to GIVE you a copy of their
> source code???
DAT tapes cost $10 each :)
>>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.
No you tinker with it and send your changes into Linus...
Lawrence Foard
>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
>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.
Warwick Allison
> 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.
Does the existence of condom vending machines guarantee I will get more sex?
Personally, I've never even LOOKED at the Linux kernel code. It would be
a silly arrangement if EVERYONE hacked at the kernel. Some people do that.
Others compile and upload binaries for others to use. Some people work on
new applications to run under Linux. Some just use existing software to
support their users. Some people give well-traced bug reports. Some people
test software on obscure hardware and report problems. Some people put
together whole packages of stable, well configured distributions so that
even the most new of newbies can get up and running with easy. And so forth.
--
Warwick
--
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.oz.au / Microsoft is not the answer.
/ * <-- Computer Science Department, / Microsoft is the question.
\_.-._/ University of Queensland, /
v Brisbane, Australia. / NO is the answer.
John Henders
>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>I can place my application.
Let us know if you find one.
--
John Henders - Wimsey Information Services
GAT/MU/AE d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m---
e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+ g+ w+++ y*
Jim Vlcek
> In <Cy9Ln...@byteware.com> vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
>
> >As I've seen so often posted with regard to features lacking in UnixWare:
> >give it a bit of time, and usually things get fixed.
>
> A Linux fan could say exactly the same thing about Linux :-)
> So, what's your point?
Doh! I was supposed to write "... features lacking in Linux".
Now the point should be clear.
Eric Silver
: 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 think this is an excellent idea Jim. Currently , I'm running Unixware
AS 1.1.2 on the bigger box amd Yggdrasil Fall-1994 Linux on the smaller
box. I;m gonna' jump on this bandwagon! You're playin' my tune!
: 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.
I think Novell has made a BIG mistake here too. It is not good marketing
strategy and it does not help the cause of UNIX in general to snub people.
This strategy will bring diminishing returns. Snubbing Linux users like this
is stupid short term marketing strategy. It artificially creats a 'them
and us' situation. Novell is demonstrating a lack of vison in this case.
Novell has not thought this through carefully, or they've been poorly
advised by their marketing 'gurus'. Even Cadillac doesn't set out to
purposefully turn up its nose at Ford Escort owners.
: 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?
And arrange for upgrades of the Linux kernel. If they want variety
they should check out the InfoMagic two CD ROM version. Its only
$20.00 US! It includes Slackware, SLS, Debian, MCC, TAMU and
JE Distribution releases of Linux on the two CDs plus a truckload
of free fully operational applications!
: 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?
Seems quite reasonable to me. Maybe a tidge high though. Maybe $149 US
might be a better price point.
: 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.
This is true. It also would give MicroSoft one hell of a scare!
I can see ol' Billy havin' a shit fit now! What it would do, is
essentially quadruple the userbase of UNIX, litterally over night.
IMO There is a very big push in the Linux community to put Linux on the
desktop. As far as Servers are concerned, what better than 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?)
In view of the do-it-yourself spirit, I consider Linux to be
the Harley Davidson Of Operating Systems. I'd just like to
see the same line include the FLH series (ie Unixware).
: 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.
: --
: Jim Vlcek
: vl...@byteware.com
: The Black Box of Lowertown
: Beautiful downtown St. Paul
We's also ensure that there is a larger pool of potential buyers for
third party software.
It would create employment and entreprenurial opportunities.
It would assist in standardization and hence lower costs for manufacturers
like Novell.
It would allow much larger market leverage for Novell.
It would assist Linux delvelopers, by giving theem more access to
to commercial markets.
It would ensure that networking capabilities are more fully explored.
[Feel free to jump in here and add other benefits] {If you want to
wine about why it wouldn't work, start another thread!)
I think this is a fine idea Jim. It truly merits serious consideration.
Novell would be very wise to listen carefully to this proposal.
Eric Harley Silver
"Linux - The Harley Davison Of Operating Systems"
... "Yes, Harley is my real middle name!"
Martin Sohnius
[ lots snipped ]
: I expect some people will fall into multiple categories and some people
: who use Linux in the business world fall may fall somewhere in between
: some of these cases. If I receive enough responses I will tabulate
: and summarize them for the net.
: In fact lets expand the poll somewhat. What about the following questions?
: I respect to the following UNIX varient (Select One)
I can't parse that sentence.
: a. SunOS 4.1.x
: b. SunOS 5.x (aka Solaris)
: c. AIX
: d. Ultrix
: e. OSF/1
: f. SCO
: g. IRIX
: h. Other __________
: I find that Linux is:
: Stable Robust Supported
: a. More/Better
: b. About As
: c. Less/Poorer
: This is just a first cut and many other questions areas could be addressed.
: Although, a net poll like this is hopelessly un-scientific and biased (unless
: I were to post to other groups) it may provide some usefull indicators.
[ snip ]
: What about it guys?? (Now where did I put my flame proof underware).
Yes, you better get it out. In particular, I suggest you learn how to
post to NewsNet. Your article *was* actually crossposted "to other
groups", to comp.unix.unixware in particular. Which makes it that much
more surprising that you apparently didn't bother to read the rest of the
thread, and see what it was about. To crosspost to a dedicated newsgroup
for an operating system which you then classify as "Other _______" against
its main competitors is either somewhat un-informed, or otherwise a
downright insult to all those who actually read that newsgroup to learn or
to help others learn about that system.
Yours faithfully,
Mark A. Davis
>Brian J. Murrell writes
>> As enscripted by Rob Janssen:
>> >
>> > Of course. Linux is not an "Old Tired Intel UNIX".
>> I take it the word you take issue with is UNIX. This may or may not be
>> true in the future. X/Open have defined a spec by which an[y] O/S may
>> use the trademark UNIX if they comply. There is nothing stopping Linux
>> as well as NT (shudder) from complying and using the TM "UNIX".
>While it would be Very Nice Indeed if Linux achieved Spec1170 compliance,
>there is little reason to fear NT doing likewise. NT's emasculated POSIX
>subsystem exists for one purpose only: to satisfy POSIX 1003.1 buying
>requirements of the US Government. It falls far short (and I do mean far) of
>meeting Spec1170 compliance, and always will.
Can you even meet Spec1170 with a non-multiuser OS like NT? I would hope
it wouldn't.
co...@hotrod.alph.att.com
Lawrence Foard <ent...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <Cy9MK...@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
>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 */
Dan
>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.
[snip]
>As for Linux being a downright replacement for UnixWare, well, it lacks the
>intelligent serial port drivers and extensive commercial software support
No it doesn't. Please referance the currently available drivers for
Cyclades and Digiboard drivers, with further Digi stuff on the way. And
check out how WordPerfect for SCO runs on a Linux box as well.
>(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.
The difference it means to my college is that I am building our entire
.edu on software that isn't costing me a dime in licensing.
>--
>Jim Vlcek I came,
>vl...@byteware.com I saw,
>The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
>Beautiful downtown St. Paul
--
Dan D'Ambrosio
ddam...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
Martin Sohnius
boggles to imagine a "she") has given to UnixWare over Linux in the
commercial market-place. Let me quote first:
M. K. Shenk (mks...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: .... Go home....
: (Yes, I am now finished being nice to you. Your idiocy, rather than your
: suggestion, has made this the case. #define FROTHING)
: ....... Ever
: think that maybe other UnixWare users think you're an idiot as well?
: Oh, get off it. You've been turned to the BIZZNESS side. Fun my ass,
: "trade-up" man.
: Frankly, your attitude sucks.
: ... UnixWare is a piece
: of crap...
: Ahh, there it is. BIZZNESS. I knew it. "Be practical." ....
: Fact is, right now I'll bet there are more Linux users than UnixWare users.
Just quickly, is this your definition of a "fact"? Like in:
#ifdef MKSCHENK
#define FACT_IS (void) I_ll_bet()
#endif
: ... the commercial types ...
: are running Linux at home/moving it to work. Hundreds of college
: students who are now hacking Linux will be admins in several years.
Another aside: No. They'll be unemployed.
: .... Frankly, you are an idiot. Not because you
: advocate a move from Linux. Because you are. I'm sure that changing...
: It's real obvious that UnixWare is YOUR pet, as you claim Linux is ours.
Actually, he is trying to earn a living, presumably to feed his children,
and *their* pets... He also has a grandmother who once tried to run Linux
:-)
: Distressed that it's not going anywhere, huh? Well, we're having fun
: over here in Linuxland.
OK, "M.K.", have you ever heard the phrase "Nice people to do business
with?"
As a fact of life, most adults spend most of their waking hours trying to
earn a living, usually in the company of other people. How those people
behave is part of everybody's everyday happiness, of the "feel-good
factor." Thus, when people in the course of their Pursuit of Happiness
make decisions whom to work with, whom to buy from, perhaps to a degree
even whom to sell to, they are influenced by those feelings. Like asking
themselves: what kind of crowd am I letting myself in with?
You have probably not exactly made Jim Vlcek's day. Therefore I am taking
the opportunity to thank him once again, and publicly, for the many hours
of effort he has over the years put into producing the comp.unix.unixware
FAQ (now available on the Novell-UK mailserver).
And to M.K., thanks again for your support of UnixWare. Keep it up.
Dan
>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.
Ya know, Jim, you should have expected this sort of response from the
same people who have written a considerable portion of the OS that you so
closed-mindedly ridicule. You responded to none of the very serious
points brought up by Drew, save that you took his "I can fix it" comment
to mean that he was responsible for supporting any bug in the OS. Then
you subtly mention that:
>As I've seen so often posted with regard to features lacking in
>UnixWare: give it a bit of time, and usually things get fixed.
Sounds to me like Drew has your situation dead bang this time. If he
wants something fixed, he fires off email to Linus and more often than
not has results in hours and days. Please compare this to "...and
usually things get fixed." I'm afraid you've failed to convince me that
UnixWare is worthy of my time, and I have a sneaky suspicion you've
failed to convince a whole bunch of thousands of Linux users as well.
Orc
>In article <Cy9Fu...@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
[most of the article quoted, then]
>>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>>I can place my application.
>
> I couldn't have said it better Jim. Thank you bringing some
> reality back into this thread.
>
> Everytime I read a squabble between a Linux user and the
> rest of the world
Hey, peek back at the beginning of this little argument and see
who started it off and who did the initial crossposting. Not that
I'd excuse the fundamentalists on the linux side, but they weren't
the ones who started *this* little mutual backpatting about how
special Novell Unix is and how that unless everyone in the universe
fled to Novell Unix, Windows will ABSORB ANYONE.
Now, scurry back to comp.unix.unixware, where you don't have to
deal with the inKorreKt thought coming from the linux newsgroups.
Thank you.
____
david parsons \bi/ one might think that you're a little insecure.
\/
Peter Mutsaers
(I use UW at work and Linux at home).
corey> BTW. here is a short list of things that I like in UW that
corey> I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
In general what you say here is true and Unixware does have more
advanced techincal features than Linux. But for most users these
extras are not interesting. What counts more is that Linux supports
much more of the commonly available hardware, seems to be more
reliable, and for sure is more efficient in its use of
resources. Benchmarks (the Byte benchmark, I know it is not very good)
show that for context switches, pipes, IPC and many other OS services
Linux is much faster. Also when it comes to memory requirements.
corey> * Adjustable scheduler (real time, fair share, etc...)
Indeed.
corey> * Veritas filesystem (journal based fault tolerant)
corey> 1) Disk mirroring, Disk Striping (sp)
corey> 2) On the fly expansion of filesystems
There is striping available for Linux in some form
(swapspace). Nonetheless the veritas filesystem is more advanced. But
Linux' ext2fs is not slower, and has some other features. It is (as
others in this thread have pointed out) very very reliable.
corey> * Full SMP support (in the 2.0 release)
This is an important plus for UW/lack in Linux. But only for a very
small group that owns a multiprocessor machine.
corey> * Netware capable (for sharing of Netware resources
corey> etc...)
Linux does support IPX. For most of us Netware is not important at all
however.
corey> * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
corey> 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI,
corey> etc...
Not really BSD of course. When it comes to portability of user level
code Linux absolutely wins. In fact it was one of Linus' major design
goals to make porting of software to Linux as easy as possible (also
BSD, POSIX, SYS5). The drivers indeed are completely differen. But I
am not so sure that streams drivers are so nice. The concept is nice
but they are awfully inefficient. Most users don't care about a neat
design of their drivers, but do care about their performance.
corey> * C2 security * Industry standard C++ compiler and
corey> graphical debugger (2.0 release) note I said industry
corey> standard. I have gcc too!
When you get the Cfront source code you can port that easily to Linux
too. Just as Motif is sold already for Linux, I expect that either g++
will soon get 'industry standard' quality (it is closing in) or
someone will port and sell AT&T cfront for Linux.
--
Peter Mutsaers | AT Computing bv, P.O. Box 1428,
p...@atcmp.nl | 6501 BK Nijmegen, The Netherlands
tel. work: +31 (0)80 527248 |
tel. home: +31 (0)3405 71093 | "... En..., doet ie het al?"
Simon P Allen
> > 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!
Specialix Intelligent multi port serial device driver in the works and
available for alpha test.
Mail me for details.
Cheers & Beers, Simon.
Martin Sohnius
: In article <38jhpg$1...@venus.mcs.com>, Leslie Mikesell <l...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: >In article <danielCy...@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.
Funny, how there is always just one thing!
I suppose Tom is trying to get his own back for Jim's cross-posting,
and now doing the same to us... We couldn't possibly have lived
with only one UnixWare vs. Linux thread :-)
What's this about Oracle on Linux? I can just hear the folks at Oracle
support fall off their chairs laughing when you ring in the first time
with a query! (Of course, this would be after you spent 100 grand on
Oracle, having saved $700 or thereabouts by NOT having bought UnixWare.)
Or am I getting something wrong?
Martin Sohnius
: I agree. If you consider Linux-to->Unixware a trade-up, then I guess I
: traded "down"! Last year I shelled out about $150 to buy UnixWare, and
: was not very impressed. They even sent me a free upgrade to version 1.1,
: which I installed, and still was not impressed. I encountered many bugs
: before AND after installation (at least I installed from CDROM, which
A totally new software concept here: a bug BEFORE installation.
: takes a little of the pain away). I tried customer support for a couple
: of problems, but also wasn't impressed.
I suppose you are VERY impressed with Linux customer support, then?
: Their X server is horrible!
The world hasn't stood still since 1993, actually.
: Slow, no help or documentation. Luckily I had also purchased a GNU utilities
: CDROM which also had the XFree86 server, and installed that instead of
: using the UnixWare server. Their H/W support + drivers is very lacking.
Ditto.
: Thank God for Linux's H/W compatibility and abundant "online" help thru
: the NET.
Other than crossposting to comp.unix.unixware, have you ever actually
looked at that newsgroup?
: I was very disappointed with UnixWare, its bugs and its
: performance,
What performance? Dhrystones, Xstones, or what?
: and came about Linux in one of those popular Computer
: Shows. I saw a copy of Yggdrasil Linux (Fall of 93 version) for $15.
: I thought, "Why not just give it a try?". Soon I was backing up all my
: work and removing UnixWare. The disks and CDROMS are stored away, and now
: I'm a happy Linuxer. Have not encountered any bugs, and performance
: is better. All my hardware is supported (with UnixWare, my Adaptec
: controller wasn't supported, and I had to shell out another $70 to buy
: a Future Domain card; now I'm back to the Adaptec).
Exactly which Adaptec controller is not supported by UnixWare 1.1?
: Please don't be fooled by all the UnixWare ads;
I am glad to hear there are some now. :-) Though I doubt that they
are pitched at the Linux market.
Marc A. Volovic
>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.
Jim, you seem to measure the world by their commercial legs. I would not
impugn such a yardstick were it not for the fact that a commercial yard-
stick is a notoriosly unsecure measure. The fortunes of Dow Jones high,
we have support. Low? Who knows?
Now, I am Linux fan. However, I am not religious in my supprt and do not
like to scream "There's the witch, burn her!" at any other OS. But Linux
has a grat advantage (which, alas, is also its DISadvantage, sometimes):
the support by the community. If a company fails, usually the software
becomes orphan. If a pianoforte falls on Linus, someone else will shoulder
the onus. But community support also means, sometime, completely useless
answers to one's questions...
>Jim Vlcek I came,
--
---MAV
Marc A. Volovic Fencers do it with rapid thrusts!
zachary brown
In other words, please drop it.
-ZB-
zachary brown
-ZB-
Alan Cox
>In article <Cy9Fu...@byteware.com>, Jim Vlcek <vl...@byteware.com> wrote:
>>addiction, so that the (many) users wanting SVR4 binaries don't have to wade
>>through all kinds of Berkruftlix to get things built.
>Or, now that someone with some business sense owns the sysv code base maybe
>some of the non-berkruft stuff could just go away... How many networkable
>lp* protocols do we need, after all? How many different network listener
>daemons? And what do you do with network interface layers that don't let
>you find the name of an inbound caller?
It would be best if some of the SYS5 layers went walkies, TLI for one 8).
As to networking interface layers that don't let you find the name of an
inbound caller I suggest you read up on issues in networking - you'll find
that the only secure networking systems that could do this are
cryptographically strong. Systems that claim this ability and are NOT
cryptogphically strong are giving you a false sense of security.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Alan Cox
> 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.
Dan Pop
>Please take this into email or drop it.
The only efficient solution to get rid of this thread sooner than one
month is to learn how to use a kill file. A flame war simply doesn't
stop because you want it to :-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
co...@hotrod.alph.att.com
Lawrence Foard <ent...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <CyC2C...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, <co...@hotrod.alph.att.com> wrote:
>> BTW. here is a short list of things that I like in UW that
>> I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
>>
>
>in the future.
>
>> * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
>> 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
>
>the standard for TCP/IP networking.
Which is a really neat thing about UW. I can choose to code
exclusively in the socket domain or the Streams TLI domain.
If fact you should check out Richard Stevens books on network
programming, all of his examples programs can be run on a UW
box.
>
>> * C2 security
>
>Fortunitly I'm not bidding on military contracts. Otherwise C2 security is
>just a major pain to deal with.
>
>> * Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
>> note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
>
>Define industry standard? What advantage does this have over Gcc? Is the
>code faster? Is there part of C++ that gcc doesn't implement? How can I
>tell the difference?
I can't, but thats not the point. Look at my original post
it says (I have gcc too!) I'm just trying to point out
that there are several commercial implementations of C++
available for UW right now including gcc. I didn't say
anything about one product being superior to another.
>
>Does Unixware:
>
>Support the range of ethernet, CD ROM, video and SCSI cards supported by Linux?
Yes, In fact I would say that UW and Linux are evenly matched
in the video arena. Check out what X-inside has. The stock UW
X11 server is quite robust thanks to the very hard work on the
part of the Novell and USL folks. The stock server has support
for most of the latest and greatest cards. i.e. Diamond Stealth 64.
SCSI adapter support is very good now. Even adaptec is supplying
UW drivers with their new 2940 PCI card.
UW does support some non-SCSI cd-roms and such.
>Does it have automatic buffer/memory reallocation?
I can't answer this in an intelligent fashion, I don't know
enough about SVR4.2 internals.
>Does it come with the full suite of internet freeware (news, games, editors,
>etc.) which comes in most linux distributions?
Sure! Maybe not directly supplied on the original installation
CD but the stuff iss available from other sources like the PDK
which I think is $60.00 if I'm not mistaken.
Not to mention I can always download and compile it myself.
>Does it support mounting MS-DOS directories as filesystems?
You bet!
I also understand that the next generation of the
DOS emulator will support 386 specific instructions
and run Windows in enhanced mode too!
>How does it perform in bench marks against linux?
I understand that it does not fair as well, but thems the
breaks. We each must take the good with the bad.
OH! my Diamond Stealth 64 PCI does clock in at just over
300K xstones though.
>
>--
>------ 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
Shannon Hendrix
: 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...)
That would be nice... but hardly necessary. The Linux scheduler does
a better job than Unixware without adjustment.
: > * Veritas filesystem (journal based fault tolerant)
: > 1) Disk mirroring, Disk Striping (sp)
: > 2) On the fly expansion of filesystems
A friend of mine runs Veritas. I've never lost data on ext2fs and he's
lost data twice in the last year under Veritas.
: > * Full SMP support (in the 2.0 release)
That would be nice... you NEED it with Unixware because it's so doggone
piggy.
: > * Netware capable (for sharing of Netware resources etc...)
I believe that's taken care of partially.
: > * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
I have little problem porting such stuff to Linux.
: > 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
Oh boy....STREAMS! Wow! You mean if we had STREAMS we could run slow
like Unixware! Oh Joy!
: > * C2 security
Two letter abbreviation for unusable.
: > * Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
: > note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
Industry standard C++? Now there's a new term. There is *NO* such animal.
C++ is in constant revision. g++ is as close as anything else I've seen.
: Add to this:
: * Certified (rather than claimed) POSIX compliance
Linux is certified by the fact that I write POSIX apps and run some. How
is Unixware certified when it's operation disagree's with my POSIX
programmers reference in some places?
: * Ability to host DOS and Windows programs within Merge
If you want that, get another machine rather than killing off a good
machine.
: * SCO binary compatibility
That's here now. Not perfect, but it's getting there quickly.
: * Motif run-time and development environments
I have been running Motif run-time and development for awhile now.
: Of these, I think that SMP, NetWare (IPX) compatibility, Windows capability
: and Motif are each show-stoppers for a number of potential commercial
: deployments.
So is Windows and DOS. SMP is something I would really like to see but
I'll have to see something besides Unixware before I worry about getting
into that.
: --
: Jim Vlcek I came,
: vl...@byteware.com I saw,
: The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
: Beautiful downtown St. Paul
--
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.widomaker.com | Linux... that's it for the moment
-----------------------------------+
Lewis Tanzos
>Lewis Tanzos (le...@ds9.lesn.lehigh.edu) wrote:
>: Did the DigiBoard drivers get announced yet?
>I have to admit I didn't see the original post but I'm running the Digiboard
>PCX/E 2 port intelligent card right now. All I had to do is call Digiboard
>and ask for the Sys V R4.2 driver and they sent it right out. Got it about
>8 months ago and it went right in.
Erk. I'm guilty of not reading the newsgroups line. I didn't realize
that comp.unix.unixware was in there.
What I meant was:
"Did the DigiBoard drivers for _Linux_ get announced yet?"
I'm waiting, as I have a PC/Xe 4 port Digiboard, and want to plug it
into a Linux system.
(If the developers are reading this, I am perfectly willing to
alpha/beta test the drivers.)
--
Lewis Tanzos - lj...@ds9.lesn.lehigh.edu - lj...@lehigh.edu
DBA Resources
: In article <Cy9Az...@metronet.com> t...@metronet.com (Tom Griffing) writes:
: 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 :^)
: Did the DigiBoard drivers get announced yet?
I have to admit I didn't see the original post but I'm running the Digiboard
PCX/E 2 port intelligent card right now. All I had to do is call Digiboard
and ask for the Sys V R4.2 driver and they sent it right out. Got it about
8 months ago and it went right in.
Carlton
--
Carlton Doe
DBA Resources, Inc. "It's not over until I win!"
Salt Lake City, UT -- Les Brown
dbar...@xmission.com
Martin Sohnius
: Martin Sohnius (msoh...@novell.co.uk) wrote:
: -> On this note, we can put this thread to rest, I believe. :-)
: Yes, when one is losing the debate, retreat always looks like an
: attractive alternative... ;-)
What debate, I wonder. Nobody, but absolutely nobody has debated Jim's
original suggestion that Novell should include Linux in its trade-in
offer. The only people who could possibly debate that point with him would
be Novell senior management. Most certainly not the Linux crowd.
And I am beginning to feel guilty for being paid by Novell to read this
pulp. Hence my suggestion to stop it. I am sure most others on
comp.unix.unixware have long since put a bozo filter on this thread, which
may well be why you don't hear much from that corner. We have better
things to do than debate yesterday's software bugs with people who jumped
off UnixWare ages ago.
Evan Leibovitch
>vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) writes:
Geez, Jim, WHY?
The Linux evangelists have just pulled out of a(nother) flame war in
the SCO newsgroup, and you roll out the red carpet for it to start all
over again in the UnixWare group. Sigh.
>>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 can think of a number of sources. Like, maybe, those of us who
use UnixWare and compile net-based freeware on it? Like, Novell itself,
which has put compiled binaries on its ftp server and mail-server?
Like companies like Prime Time Freeware, who provide ready-built
UnixWare binaries of GNU and XFree86 stuff?
Case in point: A week or so ago I was trying to build 'pine' and having
some problems. One post to the net, and I received a number of replies,
one of them from someone at Novell. Another reply came from the pine
development group at the University of Washington, asking me to provide
information based on my own experience, that would allow for a
UnixWare-optimised option to pine's build scripts.
That's how it works for Linux (except there's probably no reply from
Novell :-), and it was the same way for UnixWare.
After growing weary from exposure to a decade of red-blooded Unix
evangelism, I'm starting to appreciate the idea that Novell brings
some other perspectives to its stance in the market; even if you
don't like the result or are confused by the messages that result.
The *last* thing we need are zealots of any kind. Just as Unix isn't
necessarily the best O/S for every installation, Linux isn't the answer
to every (commercial) Unix and vice versa.
It's these same Unix zealots who immeditely saw the repositioning of
the Personal Edition as an abandonment of the product, while it was
really just a recognition by Novell that Unix didn't excel as a
*mass-market* desktop OS.
"Unix isn't perfect for everything" -- what a concept! It could never
have been the product of the zealot's mind, though.
Maybe Jim still believes that Novell is in desparate need of more Unix
fanatics, lest the NetWare fanatics wrest control of its corporate
steering wheel and drive us all to computer hell. I can't agree.
Novell bought USL because they *knew* that NetWare was a miserable
applications architecture. Corporate culture changes very slowly, but
Jim, if you haven't seen the changes in Novell within the last 18
months, I'd say you've been sleeping through it.
I've heard enough from the kind of "committed UNIX followers" Jim seems
to covet. And frankly, my gut reaction is to applaud efforts to
*discourage* their entry to the UnixWare user community. If charging $1
more than Linux effects this kind of discouragement, then so be it.
I know people who use both Linux and UW, who see the values in both and
the pitfalls in both. These are the clear minds who are needed, not the
ones who feel ordained to spread their computer gospel to the heathen.
>>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?
What everyone seems to be missing here, is that there is really very
little overlap between the best applications of Linux vs the best
applications of UnixWare. In the case of the BBS scenario above, I see
very little reason indeed for anyone to ditch Linux for UW, even for $50.
It's not worth the Linux user's money, and it's not worth Novell's effort
to bring such an upgrade product to market.
I suspect that after having seen all these postings from Linux evangelists
in the UnixWare group, Jim would prefer to have some of them practice
the same fanaticism on UnixWare's behalf.
Not only *can't* that happen, but I disagree with Jim's premise that
such a move would be a benefit even if it were to happen.
>>PE+SDK in exchange for $199 and a Linux CD-ROM ...
>>Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
IMO, not one shred. Not in a busines sense, and not even in an
emotional sense either.
>What's the benefit to Linux users of switching to UnixWare? The last
>time I looked at it, UnixWare was harder [...], less flexible [...],
>bug-ridden, and poorly supported [...].
>Linux is open in the best sense of the word [...] endless opportunity
>[...] Updates are quick to arrive [...], approaching the stability required
for real production use [...], supports nearly any device [...].
>I think Unixware users should seriously consider switching over to
>Linux. Linux+GNU+X11R6, at prices from $0 to $50, doesn't that just
>make all the sense in the world? :-) :-)
After seeing posts like these, I continue to have visions of thousands
of programmers stampeding through the streets of Teheran, many of them
holding up pictures of Linus, and others waving placards bearing slogans
such as "Death To UnixWare!", or "Kill the Capitalist SCO!"
All the smileys in the world don't hide people's blindness to the FACT
that there are applications that UnixWare will *never* be as suited to
as Linux, and things that Linux will *never* be as suited for as a
commercial Unix (UnixWare or otherwise).
To ignore this is to chant the chant of the fundamentalist, to cross the
line from satisfied user to obnoxious (and usually incorrect) cheerleader.
Proponents of either Linux *or* UnixWare being suitable replacements for
each other, speak glowingly of what their pet product has coming just
around the corner. They conveniently forget that none of the other
products are standing still in R&D either (except Xenix :-).
Linux is making strides to add new features and correct deficiencies.
So are commercial Unix vendors. A year or so from now, many of the knocks
commercial Unix proponents have against Linux, AS WELL AS the knocks
Linux proponents have against commercial Unix, will have been dealt with.
Then there will be a whole new set of whines by fanatics on both sides,
merely because they need something to feel superior about.
The only constant is the fundamental difference in philosophies between
Linux and commercial Unix, that guarantees the two will never have
substantial overlap of application suitability. The zealots are, of
course, blind to this.
The mentality of the fanatic denies the ability to recognize that the
other side just might have a point too. A key identifying mark of the
zealot (whether paid salesdroid or someone who merely needs to spread
computer gospel) is that she is unable to talk about her own pet
product without belittling the alternatives. It's a thorn a zealot's
side that someone might just get better use out of something else.
I don't like this mentality when I read it from Linux users, and I don't
want to do anything to welcome its infestation of the UnixWare community.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
Novell Unix Master Reseller / ev...@telly.on.ca / (905) 452-0504
PCMCIA: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms
Michael_Nelson
-> A totally new software concept here: a bug BEFORE installation.
Perhaps he should have said "bugs encountered before installation
completes successfully". I've seen PLENTY of _those_ bugs in Unixware. ;-)
-> I suppose you are VERY impressed with Linux customer support, then?
At least I've gotten ACCURATE, TIMELY support from Linux's support
network (the Internet), which is a far cry from the "support" I've seen from
Novell's "Tech Support" people (with the single exception being yourself,
Martin).
Three MONTHS after I stopped running Unixware on my personal system,
I got an email message from someone in Novell's customer support with a
uuencoded binary of the defective font installer for Unixware. While it's
nice that they finally sent me a fix (although I don't know if it worked...
I deleted it since I no longer have any need for it, and the FIRST fix they
sent me didn't work at ALL), it has been something like SIX MONTHS since I
reported the bug through official channels. That's a pretty extreme amount
of time to fix something as simple as a routine to read fonts off a floppy.
-> What performance? Dhrystones, Xstones, or what?
Compared to Linux, Unixware's a pig. It's slow, resource-intensive,
and IMHO unsuited to a machine such as my personal machine (i486/33DX, 16MB
RAM). When I was running Unixware, the system was always HEAVILY into the
swap file, and interactive "feel" was terrible.
Running Linux with the same load, the swap partition seldom gets
touched. The interactive "feel" of the machine is even faster than it was
under OS/2 and DOS, and it's lightning fast compared to Unixware.
We ran Unixware App Server 1.1.1 on a 66MHz Pentium with 16MB RAM.
It was sluggish. We upgraded the RAM to 32MB, and it sped up quite a bit,
but still tends to run with zero free RAM and a 10-15MB swapfile. It looks
like getting the machine up to 48 MB of RAM will finally allow it to tread
water above the swapping level, but instead of that we are going to remove
Unixware from that machine (a full time news server) and install Linux. No
sense in throwing even MORE money at it.
- Michael -
--
Michael Nelson nel...@seahunt.imat.com
San Francisco, CA FAX: 1-415-621-2608
Dan Pop
>What debate, I wonder. Nobody, but absolutely nobody has debated Jim's
>original suggestion that Novell should include Linux in its trade-in
>offer.
We were debating about the premises and assumptions which led to the
original suggestion.
>The only people who could possibly debate that point with him would
>be Novell senior management.
And yet, instead of sending his suggestion to the Novell senior management,
he decided to crosspost it in c.o.l.m. Since this was not the first
UW vs Linux flamewar started by Mr Vlcek, he's either a complete idiot
or he did it on purpose.
>Most certainly not the Linux crowd.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Using pejorative expressions when referring to those who don't share
your opinions is not going to improve the quality of your postings.
Do you also use the expression "UnixWare crowd" when speaking about the UW
users/fans?
>
>And I am beginning to feel guilty for being paid by Novell to read this
>pulp.
Does Novell pay you to read (and post in) this kind of threads? I didn't
realize you were a mercenary :-)
>Hence my suggestion to stop it. I am sure most others on
>comp.unix.unixware have long since put a bozo filter on this thread, which
>may well be why you don't hear much from that corner. We have better
>things to do than debate yesterday's software bugs with people who jumped
>off UnixWare ages ago.
Then why don't you put a bozo filter, too? Why didn't you put it from the
very beginning, since you could very easily predict what was going to
happen, based on your previous experience with this kind of debates?
Dan Newcombe
>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...)
>> * 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...)
Gee...if Novell buys Linux, maybe they'll put NetWare support in there too! :)
Though IPX support is on it's way. You can already use DOSEMU to connect to a
NewWare server...if that's your idea of fun :)
>> * 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!
Yes...I love having standard compilers for a language whose standard is still
being developed. Besides gcc blows away most compilers, at least the ones
standardly shipped with OS's.
>Add to this:
> * Certified (rather than claimed) POSIX compliance
whoope...so someone has a piece of paper that says it ran some programs. I
have not had a problem running anything on Linux from the net, but as I don't
have that piece of paper, it must suck.
> * Ability to host DOS and Windows programs within Merge
Oh boy...just what I want to get a Unix system for...so I can run DOS/Windows.
Now that I've moved to TeX, I don't need either, except in rare cases.
(Games!!!) And I can even do a good bit of those DOS cases under Linux's DOS
Emulator. Or I could run Apple II apps, or C64 Apps, or cp/m apps under Linux.
> * SCO binary compatibility
It's there...ibcs - runs SCO WordPerfect and Oracle among others.
> * Motif run-time and development environments
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? There are at least 5
Motif for Linux's that come to mind.
>Of these, I think that SMP, NetWare (IPX) compatibility, Windows capability
>and Motif are each show-stoppers for a number of potential commercial
>deployments.
If IPX and Windows are such but issues, why not just run DOS/Windows??? SMP
affects a very small portion of the market. Motif is crap but people seem to
like it...and Linux has it.
Find a clue.
--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Bill McCarthy
>In article <CyC9G...@telly.on.ca>, Evan Leibovitch <ev...@telly.on.ca> wrote:
>>The mentality of the fanatic denies the ability to recognize that the
>>other side just might have a point too. A key identifying mark of the
>>zealot (whether paid salesdroid or someone who merely needs to spread
>>computer gospel) is that she is unable to talk about her own pet
>>product without belittling the alternatives. It's a thorn a zealot's
>>side that someone might just get better use out of something else.
>
>to me most of the Linux users have just been reacting to the preposterous
>notion that if only we could get UnixWare, we would.
>
>I can't knock UnixWare, for the simple reason I've never tried it and
>know hardly anything about it. However, I do know that I am happy as
>a clam with Linux and have not the slightest desire to try anything
>else. And that Vlcek was being a real turkey when he suggests otherwise.
>
>RNA
>
>
I agree with RNA. I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I can't
help thinking that Mr. Vlcek was a bit rash in his posting. Not so much in
doing it, but with the implication of the "Trading UP" part. I trade up to
get a better product, no? I trade UP my VW to get a BMW. I trade UP my generic
"14 to a NEC 4fge "21, no? Well, trading UP to Unixware implies that it is a
better product than Linux. Never having used Unixware, I can't say, but Linux
works for me, does what I want it to, allows me acces to Unix to enhance my
work-related skills - I administer an RS/6000 client/server net and also
interact with HPUX, and Linux also gives me a lot of flexibility and power
connecting to the 'net. So, posting out of the blue to trade up to Unixware
in the Linux group, seems to me IMMHO, is asking for a flame or two at least.
This sort of post makes for entertaining reading, but certainly leads to alot
of wasted bw. My $0.02. BTW, if I could use Linux on my box at work, I would
not EVEN think about it. Linux would be there same day.
Bill McCarthy
bmcc...@gulfaero.com
"Isn't it pretty to think so."
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT\__Jake Barnes___________________________
LinuX + i486dx2/66
usual disclaimer
Simon P Allen
vl...@byteware.com (Jim Vlcek) wrote :
... But today it is a Microsoft-dominated (some would say
Microsoft-owned) world, and commercial "legs" are what count in an
operating system.
No, Commercial "legs" are what count in a *commercial* operating system
;-)
Jim Vlcek
> Not that
> I'd excuse the fundamentalists on the linux side, but they weren't
> the ones who started *this* little mutual backpatting about how
> special Novell Unix is and how that unless everyone in the universe
> fled to Novell Unix, Windows will ABSORB ANYONE.
A little bit of hyperbole, eh?
I must say that I am a bit chagrined to see that the core message of my
original posting has been completely missed by the most enthusiastic Linux
advocates. That message was in fact:
Linux is a serious presence in the UNIX community.
Novell ought not ignore this presence.
If UnixWare could attract new customers who had previously
used Linux, there should be tangible benefits.
After all this followup, I've reread my initial posting numerous times, and
reassured myself that nowhere did I even advocate that current Linux users
upgrade to UnixWare - and I certainly made no claims of any technical
superiority of UnixWare over Linux.
I merely suggested that Novell, and the UnixWare community, might find it to
be in their own interest to try to attract Linux users. I pointed out that
the nature of the cooperative Linux community - so reminiscent of the UNIX
community of a decade ago - gave it a strength and vitality that could be
tapped to benefit the UnixWare community as well. I see no reason why any
Linux/UnixWare linkage must be a zero-sum game; no reason, indeed, why a
Linux user who trades in a CD-ROM for UnixWare would have to abstain from
Linux thereafter.
Frankly, it seems to be my greatest sin to have breathed even the merest hint
that a Linux user might want to consider other platforms. In normal
discourse, I wouldn't really care how much I'd disturbed the tireless zealots
of the 'Net, but in this case I do regret that I allowed my original
suggestion to become so inundated with flamage as to discourage a rational
discussion.
Reading this thread, I fear that Novell might come to think that Linux users
are a breed scarcely worth attracting to UnixWare. That would be a wholly
incorrect judgment, and a lost opportunity as well.
Jim Vlcek
> [...] 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...)
> 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!
Add to this:
* Certified (rather than claimed) POSIX compliance
* Ability to host DOS and Windows programs within Merge
* SCO binary compatibility
* Motif run-time and development environments
Of these, I think that SMP, NetWare (IPX) compatibility, Windows capability
and Motif are each show-stoppers for a number of potential commercial
deployments.
--
Kevin MacRae
|> 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?
|>
|> "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,
|> 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?
In my imperfect world........ No!!!!!!!!!!
It would become a licensing nightmare. I am trired of the Linux community
getting something for nothing. If people want commerical software, they should
buy it. The tradeup is not free. Most people who are authorized to tradeup
have already paid a price to AT&T. This would be like a upgrade from
Wordperfect 5.0 to 6.0. Orignally two different companies but now one company.
|>
|> 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
It now is IMHO. In both SCO and Novell groups tooooo much bandwidth is devoted
now in Linux and Free BSD. As far as do-it-yourself spirit, my customers
would much prefer Unixware, Novell Support, to Linux, Kevin only support.
I am NOT saying that Linux is not good operating system, but the bandwidth that
would be wasted it would be awful. Some would say I want Unlimited licensing,
as the is what I had before.
|> 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?
|>
BTW. I think we need something like comp.unix.mine.is.the.best
newsgroup. Than I would not waste my time in SCO and Unixware groups reading
about "Mine is the best". I have liked all Unixes I have used. Why upgrade
1) Error in operating system causing problems,
2) Need new feature,
3) Can not get device 'x' to work with Op Sys 'y'
4) Wordperfect, etc. not support on system, and
5) Standardize on Op Sys (multi sites).
|> --
|> Jim Vlcek I came,
|> vl...@byteware.com I saw,
|> The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
|> Beautiful downtown St. Paul
--
*******************************************************************************
* Kevin MacRae Phone (902) 566-3198 *
* Owner/Operator FAX (902) 566-3423 *
* K & R Management Internet kr...@peinet.pe.ca *
*******************************************************************************
Orc
> 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,
It didn't cost me $1000.
If Unixware is so mediocre that you must resort to stupid
crossposted flamefests with the linux newsgroups to preserve
any sense of superiority you might have, Unixware has already
lost.
Now, please, take your soapbox and your snake oil medicine
and get *out* of the linux groups.
____
david parsons \bi/ o...@pell.com
\/
RNA
>other side just might have a point too. A key identifying mark of the
>zealot (whether paid salesdroid or someone who merely needs to spread
>computer gospel) is that she is unable to talk about her own pet
>product without belittling the alternatives. It's a thorn a zealot's
>side that someone might just get better use out of something else.
There have been Linux users knocking UnixWare in this thread, but it seems
Lawrence Foard
> I'm pretty sure is not available in Linux:
>
I'll admit this would be nice, but I also have no doubt it will exist
in the future.
> * BSD, SYSV, SVR4, XENIX programming environment
> 1) Streams based ttys, Stream pipes, TLI, etc...
I've never seen programs that support exclusively streams. Sockets are
the standard for TCP/IP networking.
> * C2 security
Fortunitly I'm not bidding on military contracts. Otherwise C2 security is
just a major pain to deal with.
> * Industry standard C++ compiler and graphical debugger (2.0 release)
> note I said industry standard. I have gcc too!
Define industry standard? What advantage does this have over Gcc? Is the
code faster? Is there part of C++ that gcc doesn't implement? How can I
tell the difference?
Does Unixware:
Support the range of ethernet, CD ROM, video and SCSI cards supported by Linux?
Does it have automatic buffer/memory reallocation?
Does it come with the full suite of internet freeware (news, games, editors,
etc.) which comes in most linux distributions?
Does it support mounting MS-DOS directories as filesystems?
How does it perform in bench marks against linux?
--
Kevin MacRae
|> In article <danielCy...@netcom.com>, Sam Daniel <dan...@netcom.com> wrote:
|>
|> >What's the benefit to Linux users of switching to UnixWare? The last
|> >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.
There is one other reason. All Op Sys have bugs. People like Martin (who I
mention because he is on my xrn screen), have already been notified of the
problem.
|>
|> Les Mikesell
|> l...@mcs.com
Shannon Hendrix
>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.
That is assuming the test suite has any real meaning. If Unixware get's
an official nod of the hat then I'd say the test is crap. Unixware is
pretty ratty IMO.
>As for Linux being a downright replacement for UnixWare, well, it lacks the
>intelligent serial port drivers
No it doesn't.
>and extensive commercial software support
>(from WordPerfect to Oracle) of the latter
That is rapidly changing.
> - and it doesn't run DOS and
>Windows software like UnixWare.
Some points:
* so what? We need to kill off all compatibility... that is one of the
world's biggest problems and is holding the industry back horribly
* Unixware runs DOS programs poorly, Windows even worse... it's not even
as good as it as OS/2 and I found it slower than emulation of DOS under
Linux.
> That's quite a bit of difference to a lot
>of installations.
Maybe the DOS part and the apps. One thing I would like to see is
SysVr4 where they didn't use the crappy stty stuff and horrible SysV key
bindings. Otherwise I'm OK with it since most BSD calls are supported
under SysV.
Also, Unixware needs a huge speedup. A Unixware system local to me
is much slower than my Linux box and I usually have a higher load.
Roy Dace
: I'd like to thank M.K. Schenk for the considerable boost he (the mind
: boggles to imagine a "she") has given to UnixWare over Linux in the
: commercial market-place. Let me quote first:
[Various out-of-context quotes deleted]
: You have probably not exactly made Jim Vlcek's day. Therefore I am taking
: the opportunity to thank him once again, and publicly, for the many hours
: of effort he has over the years put into producing the comp.unix.unixware
: FAQ (now available on the Novell-UK mailserver).
Hang on 10 seconds there, Have you been following this thread or have you
been asleep - or maybe trying to get a UnixWare box working?
Just consider for a moment that Jim Vleck didn't make Linux users' days. He
marched into a Linux newsgroup, carrying the implicit assumption that the
OS we use is inferior to the particular commercial variant he was punting.
He scoffed at any attempts to show otherwise. How would you like it if
someone came telling you (without much prior knowledge) that the tools you
work with are just toys.
Quite frankly, Vleck's arrogant and patronizing approach to the Linux
community was asking for that response. In other words, most of us don't
give a damn whether it made his day or not.
As for your response, I believe it was inappropriate and irellevant. If you
actually looked for any period of time, you would find that the Linux user
community is as friendly and supportive a place as you can find - largely
because all its members are there since they believe in the common cause
of Free Software - something which both Vleck and yourself seem to fundamentally
misunderstand.
Have a nice day,
Hal Dace
Shannon Hendrix
>Suddenly I feel so old. I find that I no longer want to rewrite the
>operating system ... I just want a stable and predictable platform atop which
>I can place my application.
Then why use Unixware? It's nowhere near as stable as Linux. Number one
tip on speeding up Unixware: ERASE IT. Another possibility is to use an
Apple Mac accelerator on it (i.e. 9.8m/s/s).
Chris Bitmead
I think the original poster was a little confused. Here is a "corrected"
version of the article. :-)
----------------
I don't know how well the current "Trade in your Old Tired Intel UNIX for a
brand new Linux" campaign is going, but I've got an idea.
We really need some of the committed UNIX followers in the Linux camp, if
for no other reason than to ensure that the traditional UNIX
commercial-ware gets compiled for Linux. And what better source of such
UNIX zealots than the UnixWare camp?
The current trade-up offer rejects UnixWare, misguidedly snubbing this
"Commercial" OS. This is clearly a mistake as, by now, there's quite a
number of potential converts in the UnixWare camp - including newbies
introduced to the power of UNIX via the easy entry provided by UnixWare.
Rather than offer the Slackware bundle currently aimed at database
sysadmins, why not then offer a Slackware bundle for $0 and a UnixWare
CD-ROM? This package not only grants a new Linux hacker a full C
compilation system for porting freeware to Linux, but the inclusion of all
those standard UNIX utilities in the SDK makes sure that the
newly-converted feels fully at home as well.
Linux in exchange for $0 and a UnixWare CD-ROM ...
Doesn't that just make all the sense in the world?
I envision numerous side benefits from attracting UnixWare users. To
start with, UnixWare could become an easy-entry path into UNIX by warming
up the unconverted in preparation for Linux. The Linux community couldn't
be hurt by exposure to some of the get-someone-else-to-do-it spirit of the
UnixWare community (hell, isn't that what UNIX is all about anyway?); we'd
be picking up people who are probably less informed than average. It
would not only help bring in commercial-ware for Linux, but dumb users as
well - and people unaccustomed to wedging UNIX onto an Intel box and
James Logajan
{inflammatory material elided]
> Jim Vlcek I came,
> vl...@byteware.com I saw,
> The Black Box of Lowertown I posted.
> Beautiful downtown St. Paul
There is lot of pride among computer programmers and computer savy people.
It is unfortunate that there also exists a lot of elitism. I think it
unfortunate that society considers computers "high-tech" because as soon
as people learn to understand and deal with them at any level, they acquire
more self-confidence in their knowledge of the world than they really have.
Jim Vleck made the mistake of insulting a lot of people by implying, perhaps
accidently, that the OS they had chosen was merely a toy. I've been in this
industry long enough to remember when CP/M or even Apple ][ DOS (shudder!)
had to be defended from the claims of being a toy. This at a time when larger
"scientific" machines ran OS's like Kronos (or older still, Scope. Win a
fabulous Internet prize by naming the company and line of computers Scope
ran on. On the other hand, do you really want to show your age?)
The thing is, I use Linux yet I agree that Unixware and, for that matter,
SCO have advantages over Linux in either features or supported hardware
and software. That will be the case for some time. But not always. The
thing for people who are afraid of Linux should keep in mind (and maybe
this is why they are afraid) is that until recently, Linux has been in
beta release. It has been in general release less than one year. Unixware
and SCO (especially) have the advantage of being around much longer. Their
advantage over Linux can reasonably be expected to diminish over the course
of the next 18 - 24 months as Linux hardware/software compatability reaches
a par with them.
And finally, as pointed out ad nausuem to Linux detractors, the bang for
the buck ratio just can't be beat by anyone.
P.S. Having lived a year in the Galtier Plaza in downtown St. Paul, I am
amused that the place of my birth should be called beautiful. People
reading this thread should note that anyone with such a signature has
a bizarre sense of humor. Take it all with a sense of humor.
Michael Babcock
This was your mistake: you should have posted reasons such as the above
in your first posting. Then we all could debate whether the reasons were
valid etc etc etc. You posted no reasons, and just assumed that it was
obvious that unixware was so much better than linux that everyone would
want to "trade up". Obviously, this is not obvious to us in the linux group
to which you posted. This accounts for most of the flamage, I believe.
The tone of message also seemed a bit derogatory towards linux, and some
comments seemed to indicate that you didn't actual know much about linux.
Just a friendly tip.
Michael Babcock
Martin Sohnius <msoh...@novell.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael_Nelson (nel...@seahunt.imat.com) wrote:
>: Martin Sohnius (msoh...@novell.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: -> On this note, we can put this thread to rest, I believe. :-)
>
>: Yes, when one is losing the debate, retreat always looks like an
>: attractive alternative... ;-)
>
>What debate, I wonder. Nobody, but absolutely nobody has debated Jim's
>original suggestion that Novell should include Linux in its trade-in
>offer. The only people who could possibly debate that point with him would
>be Novell senior management. Most certainly not the Linux crowd.
Exactly! So why did he post to comp.os.linux.misc?