Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!bcm!soma!concurrent-request
From: bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.concurrent
Subject: Re: Experiences with RTU 5.0
Message-ID: <1744@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 90 04:15:36 GMT
References: <1068@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1127@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Lines: 23
Approved: concurrent@soma.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cortex.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu
In-Reply-To: stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu's message of 19 Jun 90 14:17:51 GMT

In article <1127@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes:
   There aren't any particularly obvious advantages to the upgrade
   either, aside from lots of small bugfixes.  The new Ethernet
   software (which we haven't received yet) looks much nicer, since it
   includes support for the Internet name resolver...

This was where we saw our biggest benefit.  We run a Class B network
number with Class C subnetting (137.175.s.h with netmask ffffff00).
Under RTU 4.x we had to run a proxy ARP daemon on a nearby Sun to keep
the RTU machines' ARP caches fooled into using the correct gateway
(one of the RTU machines, in fact) to our IP-over-X.25 network.  Now
with proper subnet support it all just works.

Yes, availability of the DNS stuff is nice, and we use it and depend
on it.  But for basic functionality, you can't beat a working netmask.

Oh yeah, the C compiler seems a little better, too.  It chokes less
often on code that runs on everything else.  I find myself needing to
use the GNU C compiler less often.

Articles to: concurrent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu or uunet!soma.bcm.tmc.edu!concurrent
Administrative stuff: concurrent-request@soma.bcm.tmc.edu
Stan Barber, Moderator