Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site arizona.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!arizona!whm From: whm@arizona.UUCP (whm) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: VM/IX on IBM 4341 Message-ID: <18087@arizona.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 00:36:42 EST Article-I.D.: arizona.18087 Posted: Thu Dec 6 00:36:42 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 06:59:58 EST References: <117@circadia.UUCP> <411@mhuxd.UUCP> <634@pucc-k> Organization: Dept of CS, U of Arizona, Tucson Lines: 41 IBM has been encouraging us to consider the acquisition of a VM/IX system as a major computational facility. Several weeks ago I sent off an "unload-and- run" benchmark tape for testing on a VM/IX system. Today I was talking to the guy at IBM who is apparently attending to getting the benchmark tape run and he's run into a little problem: I had inadvertently included a directory called "kimbo's" on the the tape and to the best of my understanding, they were *unable* to read the tape because tar couldn't create a directory called "kimbo's". Further investigation revealed that the following special characters are allowed in VM/IX file names: period, comma, underscore, minus sign. The solution we reached was for me to make a benchmark tape with conformant names and Federal Express that off to them. Based on my experience with that tape, I guess I'd like to second the comment about VM/IX leading the "loser patrol". Having dealt with very early Eunice systems, it's not beyond the realm of my imagination to imagine those file name limitations, but it is simply incomprehensible that they'd have no way to deal with the problem. I mean, how hard could it be to have tar ask for an alternate file name? Perhaps this is in fact possible, but the person I'm dealing with didn't know about the feature. As mentioned, "VM/IX is based on INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation's IS/3, which is in turn based on UNIX System III, a standard UNIX system developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories." (IBM GH20-6410-0, VM/IX General Information Manual) I've had this document for quite some time, but I had never noticed the part about IS/3. The IBM guys have told us many times that VM/IX is System III, but for some reason I get the feeling that IS/3 is much like IS/1, which as I recall was a UNIX on VMS system that provided all the facilities of UNIX that could be directly mapped into VMS operations or something like that. I guess it must have had some good points, and I might have the facts mixed up, but my general feeling about the IS/1 system was "How can anyone hope to sell that product to knowledgeable users who want full UNIX capabilities." Does anyone know if IS/3 is merely an upgraded IS/1? Bill Mitchell whm.arizona@csnet-relay {noao,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!whm