Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpfcso!hpcnd!jason@hpcndjdz.CND.HP.COM From: jason@hpcndjdz.CND.HP.COM (Jason Zions) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: Switching from Sun to HP: some general questions Message-ID: <1730085@hpcndjdz.CND.HP.COM> Date: 12 May 91 18:41:12 GMT References: Organization: HP Colorado Networks Division Lines: 102 >> > Does HPUX support long filenames, symlinks, job control, sockets, NFS? >> >> Yes, since HP-UX Releases 6.5 [s300] and 2.0 [s800], respectively. > >Long file name support is there only if you've converted your file systems. >If you're writing commercial software you'll have to work with the 14 character >limit. Not all third parties have adapted to the 6.0 changes much less 6.5 >and 7.0. There are issues regarding building your own libraries too. The 14 >character limit crops up again. If you're writing commercial software you can either (a) restrict yourself to just 14-byte characters, or (b) require your customers to use LFN (long file name) filesystems. Option (a) may make life easier if you intend to port to stock SVR[23]; option (b) may cause customerw stuck with SFN to curse you. (Some applications explicitly require short-names and break if run on LFN filesystems; this is the reason for continued SFN support.) Of course, I'd personally recommend choice (c), which is to make use of the pathconf() call to ascertain the actual limit on filenames in a particular directory and adjust your operation accordingly; a little more work in the coding, but a maximally-portable solution that will please more people than either (a) or (b). >> > Does uucp work reliably at 19200 bps? Is it a solid version of uucp? > >Yes, HP runs HDB, and is solid an 19200. If you're using a series 300 machine >the internal port is a no-no (it is serviced by main CPU... and thus slows >things down). You'll want a 4 port mux... of which only one port can be >used with a modem. Argh. As has been pointed out, there is an 8-port mux board which supports modem connects on all 8 ports. Also, the built-in serial port on Series 300 machines which predate the 370 have a 1-byte FIFO which prevents reliable operation at 19200. The serial connection on the 375 (and I think 345 as well) have a much larger FIFO and have no troubles at full speed. The 98625 serial card should have no troubles. >> > Does HPUX provide lpr or does it only provide lp? >> >The printing subsystem is based on SysV. It uses a printer script and there >is no printcap (ala BSD printer subsystem). Having used both I prefer the >System V... I found it easier to bend to my will. Interesting observation! :-) Adding postscript support is pretty easy, and the lp subsystem will interoperate with lpr over the network. >> > How good (fast, robust) is HP's implementation of X? Does it include >> > all of X11R4? Is it reasonably close to X11R4? Does the MIT X11R4 >> > distribution build on a 9000/730? Is the R5 distribution likely to? >> > Do HP document their graphics hardware enough to port a window system? The 700 will run X11R4. The MIT distribution should build on the 730 with no troubles. The R5 distribution almost certainly will; there's a lot of HP gear involved at MIT. The 700 is the current X performance champion, and the HP X implementation has always had a reputation for solidity. The only remaining issue is whether HP will ship libXaw.a (i.e. the Athena widgets) or require folks to acquire the Athena goo and build it themselves. The issue HP has to wrestle with is whether shipping the Athena widgets as part of the product forces us to support them and bugfix them to the level of solidity represented by the HP-written parts of the product; we're not sure we can spare the resources to do that. Still under discussion. >> > How does HP's 19'' monitor compare to the Trinitron that Sun ships? >> > How about the keyboard and mouse? How noisy/hot would a system with >> > two internal 400Mb disks be? Would it be reasonably pleasant in an >> > office environment? Does it connect directly to thinwire ethernet? Is >> > HP hardware generally reliable? > >HP's monitors are superior in resolution and clarity to what Sun ships. I >consider Sun's monitors to be PC class in resolution, clarity, and quality. >HP's monitors are professional. Higher resolution (if you opt for it), always >clearer, and very reliable (come on now, we're talking HP here, hardware >quality is a specailty of this company). For all display models of the 700 other than the PVRX, the monitor is a 72MHz Hitachi; the PVRX family uses a 60MHz Sony Trinitron. Sonys weren't used for the other displays because of the lack of a 72MHz display, which is increasingly a mandatory requirement in Europe. Early shipments of the Hitachi suffered from some misconfiguration at the factory resulting in impaired display quality; the fixes are well understood and are covered under the 90-day warranty, if memory serves. Currently shipping Hitachis are properly adjusted. >Other things you should know. HP wrote their own networking years ago. It's >a little wierd. They're fixing it. 8.0 is the magic release again. They may >not actually be planing to call it 8.0... but it should give you the right >idea. Networking in the 8.0 releases of HP-UX (including the 700s) is based on the BSD4.3 source. In the past, the kernel portions of networking were 4.2 based with user-space commands somewhere in the continuum of patched-4.2 through patched-post-4.3. All commands are now 4.3 or better. >> *********************************************************************** >> DISCLAIMER: All of the information above is provided for informative >> purposes only, as my own opinion, and may be false. I am not authorized >> by HP to make binding statements. An HP sales representative will >> be able to give you such answers. Applies to me as well. Jason Zions