Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!xenitec!timk From: timk@xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Foxbase DOS->XENIX Summary: go for it! Message-ID: <1989Oct5.140538.16900@xenitec.on.ca> Date: 5 Oct 89 14:05:38 GMT Reply-To: timk@xenitec.UUCP (Tim Kuehn) Organization: TDK Consulting Lines: 33 In article <4844@cps3xx.UUCP> jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu () writes: >I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has done a port of a system >running under Foxbase under MSDOS and ported it to Foxbase under SCo >XENIX 386. Any quirks that I should be aware of? > >Advance thanx, > >j |%|John Lawitzke, Dale Computer Corp., R&D > |%|UUCP: uunet!frith!dale1!jhl Work > |%| uunet!frith!dale1!ipecac!jhl Home >Inquiring minds just wondering. |%|Internet: jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu I helped beta-test the SCO version of F-base/+ 2.1 and the port went without a hitch. I took a medium-sized program(around 200K source code, 10+ databases, multitudes of index files, etc.) from an existing DOS application and copied it over. I(and the company I was doing the beta-test with) found a few quirks, which I've been told have since been fixed by SCO. The vast majority of my work is with DOS stuff, so I haven't done any recent work with the SCO version, and can't comment any further (although I have heard about a problem with records not being unlocked in m-user applications, before the most recent version (2.1.1) came out.) the only thing I recall that's not there is the sys() function that gives you the amount of memory space left. Seems that they decided it was no applicable to a m-user env. and took it out. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Timothy D. Kuehn timk@xenitec | |TDK Consulting Services !watmath!xenitec!timk | |871 Victoria St. North, Suite 217A | |Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2B 3S4 (519)-741-3623 | |DOS/Xenix - SW/HW. uC, uP, DBMS. Satisfaction Guaranteed| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+