Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!maxim!prc
From: prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore
Subject: Re: Umax4.3 & NFS (& shared memory size)
Message-ID: <1019@maxim.erbe.se>
Date: 19 Nov 89 11:12:50 GMT
References: <1536@bnlux0.bnl.gov> <1761@minyos.xx.rmit.oz> <LAWLEY.89Nov17135939@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Distribution: comp
Organization: ERBE DATA AB, Jarfalla, Sweden
Lines: 19

In article <LAWLEY.89Nov17135939@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, lawley@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael Lawley - ELISPer) writes:

> > (Umax 4.2 had this limitation and it was the *only* reason we went
> > to Umax V; regretting it ever since)
> 
> Funny, we did exactly the same thing; regretting it ever since.  (Although
> working from within emacs takes away a lot of the pain of SysV != BSD.)  I
> wonder if this has been a common path for Multimax users?

Even more funny, we went to UMAX V about one year ago and haven't regret it
since then. And the latest version of UMAX V, 2.2, even includes a complete
4.3BSD environment with all 4.3BSD libraries, system calls, commands, job
control, nroff/troff/ditroff, merged SYSV/BSD tty drivers and tape device
drivers and more. No, I'm quite happy with UMAX V (but then, I often have the
/bsd directory hierarchy first in my PATH).

-- 
          Robert Claeson      E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se
	  ERBE DATA AB