--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00000 Date: 01/23/96 From: ALLEN WITTENAUER Time: 7:51 am \/To: CLIFF BLACKWELL (Read 7 times) Subj: Re: AIX In a message dated 20 Jan 96 20:25:02, Cliff Blackwell wrote: CB> Can anybody else tell me what unix flavor AIX is based on/most CB> closly resembles? I'd say System V, myself... --- DLG Pro v1.7/PDQMail v2.60 * Origin: Mental Vortex / Tucson, AZ / (1:300/311) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00001 Date: 01/24/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 01:41pm \/To: CLIFF BLACKWELL (Read 7 times) Subj: AIX Yousuf on 01/23/96 said to Cliff, Just a note of attrition that the following answers are from the Unix-FAQ from rftm.mit.edu, by Ted Timar (tmatimar@isgtec.com). YK>CB> Bob Liesenfeld's words sprang off the keyboard over to Cliff Blackwell YK>BL> Here's one fro you. What is "AIX"? YK> YK>CB> AIX is big blues grand remake YK>CB> of a UNIX flavor of some sort. YK>CB> Can anybody else tell me what unix flavor AIX is based on/most YK>CB> closly resembles? AIX: IBM's Unix, based on SVR2 (later up to SVR3.2?) with varying degrees of BSD extensions, for various hardwares. Proprietary system admin (SMIT). Both 850 and Latin-1 CPs. Quite different from most Unices and among themselves. Newsgroup: comp.unix.aix. - 1.x (for 386 PS/2) - 2.x (for PC RTs) - 3.x (for RS/6000), paging kernel, logical volume manager, i18n; 3.2 adds TLI/STREAMS. SV-based with many enhancements. 4.1 is latest (includes support for PowerPC?) - AIX/ESA, runs native on S/370 and S/390 mainframes, based on F/1. YK>Just about every version of Unix in the last couple of years is closer to BSD YK>Unix rather than AT&T SYSV Unix, except AT&T's own (and SCO as well). Nobody - SVR4 (1988), mainstream of Unix implementations, merge of System V, BSD, and SunOS. - From SVR3: sysadmin, terminal I/F, printer (from BSD?), RFS, STREAMS, uucp - From BSD: FFS, TCP/IP, sockets, select(), csh - From SunOS: NFS, OpenLook GUI, X11/NeWS, virtual memory subsystem with memory-mapped files, shared libraries (!= SVR3 ones?) YK>wanted to pay AT&T royalties for an inferior product when they could have YK>better Unix, for free, back then. But of course, now that's all changing, the YK>BSD vs. SYSV wars are over, and SYSV has embraced BSD, and everybody is moving YK>towards the latest version of SYSV. - 4.4BSD (alpha June 1992) for HP 9000/300, Sparc, 386, DEC, others; neither VAX nor Tahoe; two versions, lite (~Net2 contents plus, fixes and new architectures) and encumbered (everything, requires USL license): YK>But to answer your question, IBM's AIX was closer to BSD, but now it's closer YK>to SYSV. But in actual fact, it is pretty different from both of them. See above. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Windows Mail Reader --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00002 Date: 01/23/96 From: DAVID KIRSCHBAUM Time: 04:11pm \/To: ALL (Read 7 times) Subj: Modem on a IntelliPort II A desktop Xenix system I support has an Intelliport II AT-8 multiple serial port card for its terminal I/O. The terminals work fine. The two synchronous modems that connect two multiplexors to remote cities work fine. It's the single serial port we use for a plain old vanilla Zoom 14.4Kb Hayes-compatible modem that's giving us fits! When someone dials in, I can see the modem's lights blinking: it recognizes the dial. But then I see the Tx and Rx lights blink: it's as if the modem is saying "Ring" or "Connect" to the Xenix host, and the host is then saying something back. Whatever the host is saying is extremely stupid, because it appears to be forcing the Zoom modem to disconnect! The ONLY way we can get the modem to connect is to unplug the serial data cable connecting it to the host. Then, once the local and remote models connect, lock in, etc., we can plug the data cable back into the modem and all is copacetic. But if we don't unplug that data cable .. the modem seldom if ever will connect. I've tried everything: new cables, new null modem adapter, forcing the Zoom to ignore DTR, etc. etc. I've set up the port to the settings specified by the Computone people (the manufacturers of the Intelliport card) via the "mkdev fip" command. I've burned joss to Buddha. No joy. So .. any ideas, folks? Oh .. the Zoom modem works perfectly when plugged into the serial port of a regular PC. Naturally :-( Thanks in advance, David Kirschbaum Toad Hall ... It's okay to call someone stupid; just don't prove it. --- PPoint 1.80 * Origin: Toad Hall (1:3634/2.4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00003 Date: 01/25/96 From: MATTHEW MCBAIN Time: 05:24pm \/To: TIM ROWE (Read 7 times) Subj: Question?? * In a message to All, Tim Rowe said... TR> If a user on a unix system ( not the root user ) was on, can TR> they see who is logged onto the system? Any help in this TR> matter would be greatly appreciated. Yes. Try the 'who' command. Or am I missing something? :P --- * Origin: Multiboard * 519-660-8981/6908 * Email * 2GB * (1:2401/0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00004 Date: 01/24/96 From: PATRICK GROTE Time: 12:17pm \/To: ALL (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux as a Gateway? Hi, I am wondering if a Linux machine is what I need. Could someone please comment on this plan? I have six computers in my office. I also have a 28.8 dedicated SLIPP connection to the internet. I would like to setup a Linux box using TCP/IP to provide the computers on the LAN with internet access. Can I do this? Can Linux act like a router routing the TCP/IP through the SLIPP connection? If so, any comments on how? Also, I have a UUCP account that tosses mail into my BBS. Can Linux toss UUCP mail? PG, St. Louis, MO -- patrick@supportu.com On 01/24/96 at 10:02AM -- http://www.crl.com/~supportu/ * CMPQwk 1.42 158 *All things are difficult before they are easy! --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2 * Origin: Support U. - We Support It All! (1:100/380) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00005 Date: 01/13/96 From: DAVE VAN DIJCK Time: 02:18am \/To: JOHN DONOHUE (Read 7 times) Subj: UNIX training..... Hi there, John! Friday December 22 1995 14:20, John Donohue wrote to Joshua Estell: JD> courses in their Computer Science schools. Cheaper, but harder to find, is JD> to find a local Internet Provider who will sell you a shell account (as JD> opposed to a SLIP/PPP account). And now, to borrow a phrase from the Can you still have mail, ftp files, and surf the www with a shell account? (I am a total internet dummy)... greetz, Dave Merry Newyear John! --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: Born to be wired... (FidoNet 2:292/8114.13) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00006 Date: 01/13/96 From: DAVE VAN DIJCK Time: 02:22am \/To: TOMMASO PETITTI (Read 7 times) Subj: Hi there, Tommaso! Sunday December 17 1995 01:11, Tommaso Petitti wrote to All: TP> Hallo All! TP> I'm trying to build a point Fodonet Under Linux. TP> I think I need IfMail. Is it Correct? TP> Where ca I fin it, on the Internet? ftp.sunsite.unc.edu /pub/Linux/system/Fido/ifmail*.* I think... TP> Takns. TP> Ciao, TP> Tommaso TP> e-Mail: t.petitti@uniserv.ccr.rm.cnr.it TP> www: http://uniserv.ccr.rm.cnr.it/ TP> * SeM. 2.14 UNREG * System price error. Inadequate money spent. TP> -+- Maximus/2 3.00 TP> + Origin: ]\/[imac IV The Next Generation 3D-House (2:335/364) greetz, Dave Merry Newyear Tommaso! --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: Born to be wired... (FidoNet 2:292/805.162) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00007 Date: 01/23/96 From: GUY LEFRANCOIS Time: 10:50pm \/To: JAMES KIMBALL (Read 7 times) Subj: troff Hi James, > GL@> My question is about the existence of a MS-DOS equivalent > GL@> to troff. Does such a thing exist and if so, where can > GL@> I locate it? > Yeah, there are some out there. Try a Simtel mirror such as > oak.oakland.edu. Will do... Thanks! Guy --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: sbe L'Impromptu bbs, Deux-Montagnes, QC (1:242/846) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00008 Date: 01/25/96 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 05:32pm \/To: PIERRE PHANEUF (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux YK> Well, by definition if you have something that is YK> "shared", then that must YK> mean two or more other things must be using it. PP> I think we'd be better off using "shareable" instead of PP> "shared". I mean, I have VBRUN100.DLL here, but only PP> got one program for Visual Basic 1.0... So this is not PP> shared, but it is shareable. Agree on this? Shared or shareable are both okay with me, but in the case of a standalone bootup game, there is nothing else available that can share it to make it shared or shareable, one way or the other. Actually, as far as the VBRUN*.DLL goes, that can be shared not just shareable. Although I'm sure you've seen the message "Another Visual Basic application running, please close it down", that's just an extremely conservative application not wanting to take any chances, because there are other VB apps which don't mind sharing the same copy of VBRUN*.DLL. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1V00009 Date: 01/25/96 From: BILL DUFF Time: 08:39am \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux YK> Unix has a 25 year old legacy to support, and it shows: BD> You mean like DOS' backward compatibility? YK> Exactly. The DOS world has emerged from it's own obsession YK> with backwards compatibility, the Unix world hasn't yet YK> emerged from its own. The last time I checked DOS was just as retarded as it ever was. *How* has DOS come out of the dark ages? Like I said... When we gonna see 32 or 64 bit versions of DOS? How about a version that just uses more than 1 megabyte? How about a ver that does two things @ once?(Tell hell with numerous things simultaneously...... I won't hold out....) Shall I go on? YK> 1980's technology will get us towards the next phase, the YK> object-oriented operating system; having to support 60's and YK> 70's technology will make it extremely difficult to go YK> towards OO. BD> I in no way shape or form suggested that UNIX was perfect or BD> that there would be no problems associated with making UNIX BD> OO. I merely stated and stand by my statement that UNIX is BD> light years ahead of gatesware and that anyone who willingly BD> puts up with DOS is computationaly impaired. Using DOS on a BD> modern PC is like driving an Indy racer in a driveway. Why BD> would you do it? YK> Fine, DOS users were a brain-dead bunch, fools for ever using YK> their highly successful operating system. We here in the high YK> and mighty Unix world had always known better, now it's time YK> for the world to finally discover the true superiority of our YK> operating system, Unix. The only problem is that nobody is YK> listening. Bovine excrement. The droves in which people are flocking to Linux demonstrates that more people now than ever are moving towards the Unix style environment. Also I believe you will find the vast majority of systems(from an international perspective) run some flavor of Unix. Linux has become *so* unpopular that they(the them who publish periodicals) began publishing a periodical called simply "Linux" to accommodate the demand of all those people who don't want Linux. Right next to the Unix periodicals. More evidence that Linux is coming into it's own. YK> People have been telling us in the Unix world that this YK> operating system is way too complicated YK> and cumbersome to be practical for most purposes, for at YK> least 20 years now. Everytime someone comes up and says this, YK> they get shouted down by the usual vocal group of Unix YK> disciples who have convinced themselves YK> that there is nothing wrong with Unix and all of the rest of YK> the world is out of their minds for even thinking something YK> is wrong with it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I shall reiterate sir for the 3rd time.... I never said Unix was perfect. I said and still maintain that Unix/Linux is light years ahead of gatesware. And it undeniably requires that you actually know something about how your computer works. But let's get real here... If you're asking me "DOS or UNIX"? There is no choice. Dos is fine if all you want to do is word process. And I suppose that if you have no other aspirations than to connect to the occasional Fido BBS Dos is just fine again... But if you really want to get computationally far out, to say nothing of connection DIRECTLY to the internet....... Are you kidding me or what? YK> Just from everyday life, we know all about the silent YK> majority. Vocal little groups of loudmouths go around YK> pettitioning and shouting and waving and telling people how YK> to conduct their lives. The silent ones politely listen to YK> them, and go do exactly the opposite. This is the case with YK> Unix, a vocal little group keeps this operating system from YK> ever walking away from its past; The silent majority? Yeah I know them. All the people I know who have had their myriad troubles with DOS(out of memory even though we have 8 megs of ram, "abort retry fail" that never actually works, backward compatibility ONLY in select spots(incorrect Dos version anyone?)) and yearn for a competent OS. As for "vocal little groups of loudmouths", I have never said that anyone MUST use Unix. And if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks it should be apparent to anyone that you've run out of pertinent things to argue with. YK> and the rest of the world walks away from Unix. Later. ... "Oh bother!" said Pooh as he took aim from the grassy knoll. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0333 * Origin: ArenA An Absurd Notion Raleigh, NC 919-420-0065 (1:151/139)