Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:7670 comp.bugs.sys5:1530
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!micor!latour!ecicrl!eci386!woods
From: woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: Unix 5.4 and ulimit
Message-ID: <1991May2.181547.26698@eci386.uucp>
Date: 2 May 91 18:15:47 GMT
References: <1991Apr21.140740.6766@gold.sub.org> <1991Apr27.131456.16754@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Apr28.151953.3189@nightowl.MN.ORG> <2544@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Reply-To: woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <2544@urbana.mcd.mot.com> dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com writes:
> One thing that should be noted about the mtune and stune files is
> that this is not the way configuration was done on the 3b2 reference port
> nor is it the way it's done on the 68k or 88k reference ports.
> There isn't a standard way to do configuration from USL.

Just to be picky.... since the 3b2 reference port is the first
version, and the one originally from AT&T, this should be considered
the standard against which one compares features.

Are the mc68k and mc88k versions different from the 3b2 version in the
way they configure and tune the kernel?  If so, *WHY*?!?!?  Are they
differenet in other ways, particularly w.r.t. administration?  If so,
*WHY*?!?!?!?

I'd be very wary of using the i386 version(s) for any sort of
comparison.  They are the only versions that will contain some
specific levels of compatibility to XENIX, such as the ability to run
Intel OMF binaries.  Certainly SysV/386 r3.2 was quite different in
having more than just XENIX binary compatibility....  The bad vibes
continue!
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]  VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL