Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!spdcc!dyer From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: What is an acceptable O/S for a 286? (Was: Re: microport memory) Message-ID: <1173@spdcc.COM> Date: 27 May 88 06:22:02 GMT References: <53709@sun.uucp> <96@dcs.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Lines: 38 In article <96@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > In article hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > >However I am reluctant to recommend SV/AT in any configuration, lest I > >mislead people into believing that I endorse it. > >(My problems are not with Microport specifically, by the way, but with > >System V.) > > Well -- would you care to tell us what **IS** an acceptable OS for a personal > computer? I would suggest to Chuck Hedrick that having a flat 32-bit address space with virtual memory instead of being saddled with a 286 makes a lot more difference in one's attitude towards System V than you'd expect. I've used SCO XENIX on a 286, and both SCO XENIX and Bell Tech's UNIX 5.3.0 on a 386, and the difference between the 286 and the 386 in terms of what can be ported easily (i.e., little more than being recompiled) is enormous. I find that the Sys V/BSD dichotomy is getting a little unconvincing. I'm a 4.3BSD fan, but my home machine doesn't run it, and probably won't ever (unless I finally save for that Sun 386i). I find SCO XENIX 386 a perfectly fine environment, and with GNU Emacs and MH/sendmail/smail ported, along with its multiple login screens accessible via ALT-Fn, it's a creditable workstation surrogate. My experience with Bell Tech UNIX 386 5.3.0 is more recent, but it all seems to work, and with their ethernet card and Streamlined Networks TCP/IP code, it interoperates with VS2000s and RT/PCs pretty well on a campus network (missing right now are BIND and any SMTP server, but that is pretty minor, the latter only awaiting some spare time on my part. I can live with a host table right now [millions do].) I am given to wonder what the nature of Chuck's objections are. I know it isn't BSD, but I've found that just to be a matter of accustomization and customization. You can't get a BSD box yet for the same price as a 386 box running XENIX 386, Bell Tech UNIX or Microport. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!dyer