Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.micro.att,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases Message-ID: <382@baylor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 21:24:30 EDT Article-I.D.: baylor.382 Posted: Mon Aug 12 21:24:30 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 22:03:40 EDT References: <2067@ucf-cs.UUCP> <363@cuae2.UUCP> <2423@sun.uucp> Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria Lines: 58 Xref: linus net.micro.att:472 net.unix-wizards:11552 > > IBM is pretty braindamaged but even they don't require you to run MVS on > > your XT. > > That's a remarkably irrelevant example, considering 1) it has nothing to do > with internal vs. external releases and 2) since MVS is written in 360 > assembler and PL/S, and since the former *can't* run on an 8088 without a > slow simulator and the latter probably has lots of 360-dependent goo in it, > you couldn't run MVS on a PC anyway. OK. Take any IBM operating system and stick it in there. I'm not an expert on IBM. > > Also most "non AT&T" UNIX systems predate System V. The ones that claim to > > be System III are almost all Microsoft or Unisoft releases > > The HP ones? The CCI one? (more on that one later) The Plexus one? No, just most. A goodly percentage are TRS-80 model 16s. > > and are V7 with SIII patches > > So what? The TTY driver seems to be your primary source of dyspepsia; I > suspect most systems which are "V7 with S3 patches" have S3 libraries and a > kernel which started out as a V7 kernel and got changed to resemble S3, > including having the S3 tty driver dropped into it (I know that's how the > CCI system was done, since I was one of the people who did it). As such, > well, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a > duck, who cares if it's a goose with duck patches? It doesn't quack like a duck since I took a program from V7 to Unisoft SIII and compiled it and it ran. No problems. > > (which is why I didn't have to know about MIN & TIME when I was working > > on Xenix 3.0. Nice of Microsoft to tell me). > > This has been explained to you elsewhere, but if you're clearing the ICANON Yes, it was explained by the OEM the "SIII" came from, after I asked him why the SIII wasn't SV compatible. > bit, you either have to set MIN and TIME to get reliable results or they > botched the tty driver. They didn't appear to have attempted to convert the TTY driver. VMIN and VTIME should never have been part of c_cc[] in the first place, so if they had converted it and made them seperate somewhere I'd hardly call it a botch. > Guy Harris Peter da Silva (wondering why he's still flaming me over VMIN and VTIME). PS: I don't know what current Xenix3 or Uniplus+ are like, so if they have "fixed" these "bugs" since the systems I was trying to port things between were released don't flame me for that. I get enough of it from Guy & Bill. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076