wanted: UNIX or clone

[Evan Leibovitch]

In article <1991Apr29.031654.17360 at agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343 at violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes:
>In article <1991Apr28.225644.10469 at nstar.rn.com> larry at nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>ilan343 at violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes:

>>>By the way, are there any mainstream commercial applications
>>>(WordPerferct, 123, Dbase, etc) that won't run under  some 386 Unix
>>>variants? 

>>Sure - look at Norton - they are specifically for Interactive.

Bullshit.

Interactive distributes (and probably had a hand in the development in)
UNIX Norton, similar to the ties SCO has with Microsoft Word for UNIX.
It's in their interests to sell their products to as many 386 *IX users
as possible, regardless of platform.

Both Norton (and UNIX MS-Word) come in versions (either install-time
options, or separate distribution) for "AT&T UNIX". This is a generic
version that will install  on ESIX, Dell, Intel/BellTech, and of course
the version AT&T sells for its own hardware. Norton will run on any system
using standard AT&T filesystems. Unusual ones like ISC's or ESIX's FFS
would need special drivers.

My company has sold -- and supported -- the above products, as well as
WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and a bunch of others -- on ESIX. The customers
are happy. We've developed a fairly extensive catalogue of software
which we have tested are prepared to support under ESIX, and there isn't
much missing that you'd expect to find.

>Is this for real or is just Interactive's marketing?  They distribute
>Norton, right?  Does the software use any ISC specific feature (file
>system, drivers) ?

Interactive's standard filesystem is a bit different from the vanilla
AT&T System V filesystem. You'd *need* special drivers for the ISC
filesystem, and Interactive's distribution of Norton guarantees you'll
find that support, if you're installing it on an ISC system.

I personally don't consider much benefit in Norton specifically, so I
don't bemoan its lack of support for the ESIX FFS.

>>Look at Word Perfect, they have a version for SCO Unix and Interactive
>>Unix - but not for ESIX.

Where do you buy from? The only versions available from my suppliers
are for "SCO Xenix" and "Generic 386 UNIX".

But what about products that *might* have separate distributions for ISC and
SCO UNIX...

So what? All that would say is that SCO UNIX and ISC are sufficiently
different from each other to require separate distributions. It would
illustrate that one of them, or maybe both, deviate from attempts
at a single 'shrink-wrap' standard.

It says, however, nothing about how well ESIX supports one (or both) of
the distributions. We run the 386 UNIX distribution of WP on ESIX, make
no changes to the installation procedure, and have had no problems.

I do not know enough about the differences between SCO and ISC UNIX that
would require separate distributions. Frankly, I find it good news, not
bad, that ESIX does *not* require a separate distribution.

>Now for the follow-up question.  Why?   How come a text-based
>application  like Wordperfect can't be made to run under all of the 386
>plataforms.

Some 386 applications try to do cute things with the console when being
run there, to take advantage of most 386 computers' hardware graphic
capabilities. Rick Richardson posted (July 31, 1990) an article on the
incompatabilities between the console ioctl values of the major 386 UNIX
vendors. ESIX's values matched the AT&T release exactly, while both ISC
and SCO strayed (in different ways).

So who's to blame? Which one is the standard ESIX (and Dell, and
Microport, etc.) should follow? I share Rick's hope (expressed in his
article) that the vendors did a better job collaborating on a standard
for console programming in R4. If not, the cynic in me would think that
certain vendors *still* believe it in their interests to "make their own
standards".

Anyway, anything running on terminals (or the console in text-only
mode) works just fine under ESIX, thank you. And software packages
that don't play with the console (including most DBMS systems) don't
generally have special versions for different 386 implementations.

>There are 6-7 vendors of 386/486 Unix out there.  Unless off-the-shelf
>software can run unchanged across plataforms, it seems that, except for
>SCO and ISC, they would all have to close their doors. (And we would all
>be lining up to buy Microsoft's OS/?)

The best way to check compatability, regardless of what platform you're
buying from, is to go to a knowledgable vendor/dealer who has pre-tested
what they're selling you. That was always important for hardware, it's
also often important for software too.

That proponents of ISC and/or SCO would say that only their platforms will
properly run 386 UNIX software is no more than marketing hype at best and
scare tactics at worst. Any resemblance to reality is purely a fluke.

-- 
   Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan at telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
      As bad as Dan Quayle may seem, he'll never compare to Spiro Agnew.