Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!srhqla!nrcvax!kosman!kevin
From: kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: C/Utilities Toolchest (MIX Software)
Summary: Not so fast, please
Keywords: unix, msdos
Message-ID: <1045@kosman.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 89 16:21:46 GMT
References: <5678@cps3xx.UUCP>
Reply-To: kevin@kosman.UUCP (Root)
Organization: K.O.'s Manor - Vital Computer Systems, Oxnard, CA 93035
Lines: 42

In article <5678@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
>I just got the MIX Software C/Utilities Toolchest software installed.
>This package is supposed to provide a pseudo-unix environment.
>The manual looks very professional.  It looks like a good package.
>However, there is a MAJOR PROBLEM!!!!!

>They don't produce output to stdout!

Hmmm?  That's a bit broad given the description that follows.

>After booting up the system, they work just fine.  However, after I use
>my BRIEF editor, the C/Utilities Toolchest never again produce output.
>I have tried to reset the screen into every possible configuration.
>Nothing works.  After using BRIEF, the C/Utilities Toolchest is USELESS.
>This is definitely a bug, and NOT a feature!
>
> [flaming deleted]

Wait a minute.  BRIEF is not a part of the Toolchest, in fact I don't know
what it is.  So it's as likely as the Toolchest to be the thing that has
the bug.

I think so partly because I also have the Toolchest, and I've been using
it right along, for all sorts of stuff, to the point now that the only
reason that I will even THINK about not using it is that I've gotten
so used to it that I've forgotten what standard MSDOS and what's coming
from the Toolchest.  In other words, I think *very* highly of this
product.

I have never seen it do anything remotely like what you describe.

In fact, since the toolchest is a collection of separate .COM and .EXE
files, and they run independently when called upon, it really looks
as if BRIEF has somehow modified the software environment in some way or
other (I don't really know what that might be) and not
restored it when done.  I have no idea why the Toolchest would be
more vulnerable than anything else, given how simple it is, but I
would suggest it's not really the fault of the Toolchest: it just
expects to be running in a standard environment.

When you have found out what's actually broken, give us some more
information.