From: udo@umunk.GUN.de (Udo Munk) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 00:25:52 GMT
H.P. Heidinger (hph@hphbbs.E.open.DE) wrote:
: In article <umunk.740677666@naxos> munk.pad@sni.de writes:
: Show me a "nowadays-UNIX" that clings to ONE standard!
AT&T UNIX System V.x - V.4, BSD 4.x
: - IRIX (Silicon-Graphics) is a so-far "pure Sys-V" but has
: symbolic-links in its filesystem,
: - ULTRIX is a BSD[V4.2]-derivate but has a 'termio.h' and
: 'termios.h' (POSIX-termio) and supports all these
: - TOS [Targon-Operating-System, Unix-clone] V4.whatsoever on NIXDORFs
: TARGON (actually a PYRAMID-machine) even has a file /etc/universe
: that keeps entries about which 'universe' certain users prefer to
: work in -- "att" (AT&T) or "bsd". You find an /etc/inittab and
: /usr/ucb/... on the VERY SAME machine!
The lastest version of TOS I used so far (4.1) is SV.3 with an X-Open brand,
btw, the only system I know which implements both worlds (SV and BSD)
on one system. But you have to switch between universes, universe att:
no sockets! and so on. The SV.4 is called Sinix and it's a clean
implementation of AT&T SV.4, not more not less.
Yes, some commercial vendors also a mixing everything into their kernels,
but that's ok. They give me (sometimes poor) manuals with in index, where
I, more or less easy are able to read, what is implemented in this kernel.
Under Linux I've to study the sources (for every new release again) to get
this informations and that needs more time which I don't have.
[...]
: the thought of "Open Systems". I guess you would not refuse to have
: sockets in a Sys-V, because they were introduced with BSD neither
: you would refuse 'symbolic links' if you had a Sys-V to manage with
: lots of diskspace and quite a couple of different filesystems.
Again: it's ok but I want the manuals.
: Well, things are in quite a disorder in LINUX, that it is hard to
: cope ... at the beginning! But COH' is still running after
That's what I said.
: Sys-V-compatibility while dragging their "V7-bag" behind itselves.
: Is that any better? :-))
Linux also still have the V7-bag behind, take a look at the header file
and library functions and compare with the K&R book from 1978.
: - ARCNET is a "hardware-creek" and not a standard. There is NO system
: (of which I know) that supports it. So what shall's ... there is
ARCNET is a standard still used to connect gages today.
You don't know one? Take a look at COHERENT :)
: no protocol-level-driver anyway (the user had to write one). At
: most one could build a peer-to-peer connection between two (or
: more) COH'-boxes. What's that gotta do with networking?
Hm, first I want to have a peer-top-peer connection between my two
COHERENT boxes. Also I can use this no-protocol-level-drivers like KA9Q
to connect to a thing called Internet (if my uucp feed gets the needed
terminal server and our telecom company is able to install the needed
lines, befor I die:). Would you call this networking?
: - COH' does not support SLIP, since SLIP (Serial-Line-Internet-Protocol)
: hooks on TCP/IP (_IP_!). There just exists a port of KA9Q and
: another @!#~-thingy which are nothing but Application-Level hooked
: packages that emulate SLIP somehow.
A working SLIP is a working SLIP, does SLIP works fine under Linux?
: How comes, that one with an amputated arm and lost fingers on the
: other hand can count the available drivers?
Good questions, how comes? As far as I've seen it's not more difficult
tp write a driver for COHERENT than for SCO or Linux. What do you
think?
: Would you dare to bet on it, that MWC will NOT stuff in a DOS-Emu.
: if there is demand for it?
Maybe, but there is no demand for it, because it's not very usefull.
Seems that COHERENT users doesn't like good old DOS programs any more.
I guess the most ones are using Windows and would be happy to get a
emulator, which is able to run Windows in 386 protected mode.
But before this can be realized, so that it can be used for real work,
Intel must give us a CPU, where real virtual CPU's can be created and not
limited 8086 ones.
: Here is my bet: They will, if it would sell -- dependless whether it
: blasts the kernel or not!
Maybe. But hopefully with the possibility to configure it as an option,
like VP/IX for SCO.
: # you'll not find a great difference in the size of the systems.
: # COHERENT and X11 from ASC defenitely are much easyer to install,
: # the Linux people should take a look at a COHERENT and X11 installation,
: # to learn how a UNIX OS should be installed.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: (I'm roling with laughter :-)))))) )
: Uhhh boy! You are comparing baby-shoes and army-boots here!
: If COH' deserves the attribute "UNIX" at all, it is Lowest-End-UNIX,
: and so is its installation -- idiot-proof. But no way one learns
: "how a UNIX OS should be installed".
: I've been maintaining ULTRIX- and IRIX-Systems at industrial
: custumors sites. I installed SCO- and INTERACTIVE-Unix (both PC
: Unices) at home. I've been using COH' for three years now and I
: installed LINUX onto a spare 200MB SCSI disk recently.
: None of all these systems can teach anybody how-to-install-a-UNIX-OS.
: But nonetheless is COH' _THE_ "exemplary UNIX" -- actually it is
: galaxies away from that ...
Yes, really? So if AIX, SCO, Linux... is somewhat difficult to install
COHERENT also should be and the other vendors better doesn't take a look
at it, how easy it could be? COHERENT is missing two features today:
swapping and networking, I bet also for this features MWC makes it possible,
that users are able to get their box up and running without 250 request
per day for help in c.o.c.
If there would be galaxis, COHERENT wouldn't be able to run all the
commercial apps like dbman, 123, wordperfect... written for SCO.
Sorry, I can't see your point here.
: Objection, your honor!
: With the tools of stock COH' all porting endeavours can drive you mad!
: I had to port -step by step, little by little- most of the
: GNU-tools, before I could think of portings of non-trivial kind.
Objection? There where non trivial ports before any GNU tool available
for COHERENT. On which system the one or other GNU tool isn't needed,
to get some applications running? What I've seen from Linux is, that
there only are GNU tools of the basic command available, no other choice,
but that's ok.
: That's the ONLY reproach that I _really_ accept.
: But if COH' would come as a "full-featured" UNIX-clone, that looks
: like UNIX, smells like UNIX, tastes like UNIX and feels like UNIX,
: including X, network and the other goodies then its docu would be
: at least 5 times as big as it it now. Thus MWC could not longer
: sell it for just $$99.
Looks and smells like a SV.3 without networking and swapping.
You are right, X cost another amount, the documentation also,
but COHERENT still costs $99 as far as I know.
: # >no X (Answer or MWC will cost) Xfree386 1.2 and 1.3 (free), Motif (costs)
: #
: # no X????? Sure, it costs money, but ASC's version is worth every cent!
: That of LINUX would be worth every cent, too ... again: it's not
: worthless, since it is free ...
Of course not, it does work.