Which SCSI adapter is better??

[Gerry Gleason]

In article <24631 at cup.portal.com> hkhenson at cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) writes:
>keithe at tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes:
>>The only downside being that AT&T nor INTEL are delivering a UNIX that can
>>use the SCSI controller, Adaptec 1542A or otherwise.  It is, in my opinion,
>>a serious deficiency in their product offerings.

>I have in my hand a Chantal SCSI driver for Intel Unix/386 ver. 3.2 dated
>November 10, 1989.  It uses the Adaptec 1542A.  Keith Henson

I don't think this is an answer to the original question.  In order to be
able to install on a SCSI drive with a particular controller, the appropriate
driver needs to be in the UNIX on the install floppy.  Although I haven't
tried to do it, you can probably install first on an "AT" style drive
(ESDI/ST506), then build a kernel that can mount a SCSI drive, then move
everything over to the SCSI drive.  There is some magic necessary to build
a bootable SCSI drive, and I don't think you'll find this proceedure
documented anywhere.  In particular, you need to change the file
/etc/conf/cf.d/sassign to have the major number of your SCSI disk driver
instead of Interactive's number before building the kernel you install
on the SCSI disk.

By the way, is there anyone else that is upset at how both Interactive and
SCO each have an undocumented kludge that pulls all there disk drivers
under a single "psuedo-driver" so that no one else can reasonably write
a driver compatible with it?  Does anyone at Interactive want to defend
this kludge?

Gerry Gleason