future of UNIX and microport

[Chip Salzenberg]

I agree with David Carlson that we need to keep *calm* when discussing
Xenix vs. SysV.  Now, on to the discussion, which is already in progress.

According to dave at micropen (David F. Carlson):
>My point was more like my terminfo code, which the Xenix /etc/ttys and termcap
>filched from who knows what version, will be a dog to port.  Worse than from
>straight BSD that I took much of my low-level stuff from.  Terminfo offers
>sanity in that everything is in one place rather than strung out over 159 
>different ioctls (which arg does TIOCLBIS take anyway?)  What a mess.

To clear up a few misconception, let me state that SCO Xenix:

	Includes terminfo, if you want it;
	Includes termcap, if you want it;
	Includes V7-ish curses, using termcap;
	Includes SysV curses, using terminfo;
	Uses SysV-conformant termio ioctls for tty control.

The arguments about terminfo vs. termcap have *nothing* to do with the
version of terminal control offered by the kernel.  You could put terminfo
on BSD ioctls, and you could put termcap on SysV ioctls (as SCO did).

>AT&T sucks for not having a sub-second clock interval.  Although XENIX nap()
>is anemnic compared to BSD ftime().

Which, of course, means that SysV missed the boat.  Except for SysV R3.2,
which of course includes nap().
-- 
Chip Salzenberg             <chip at ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering             Me?  Speak for my company?  Surely you jest!
	  "It's no good.  They're tapping the lines."