Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3045 comp.unix.microport:1353 news.groups:5195 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!uport!plocher From: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Message-ID: <425@uport.UUCP> Date: 20 Aug 88 05:28:53 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Aug16.011817.17102@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <593@morticia.cme-durer.ARPA> <55@volition.dec.com> Reply-To: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA Lines: 47 In article <55@volition.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: >I understand that Xenix/386 >is already system-call compatible with UNIX V.3/386 (from ISC, Bell Tech, >and Microport); Xenix 2.3 (announced as being avaliable on 8/15, shipping in "6 weeks") is Xenix with the ability to run COFF binaries (V/386 and V/286 stuff). AT&T Vr3.2 (shipping for the WGS series on 8/15) is Unix V with the ability to support Xenix: "This release supports the Microsoft Xenix application programming interface (with system call extentions supporting existing Xenix SystemV/386 and Xenix System V/286 applications) at both a source code and a binary executable level. The product inherits Xenix System V floating point emulation and provides extentions supporting Xenix semaphores, messages, shared data inode types, and mountable file systems. [Note: this does NOT specify object level compatibility. -John] "The system fully conforms to the SVID and is compatible with all previous releases of Unix System V on the Intel 80386 at a source, binary executable, and object code level. Unix System V/386 Release 3.2 also provides emulation routines supporting Unix System V/286 release 2 binary executables. The above quotes were taken from my copy of the AT&T Unix System V/386 Release 3.2 Product Overview manual which just came back from the print shop. ;-) > I am expecting UNIX V.4/386 to be more or less cause the >merge of Xenix and V/386 -- at least from a functional standpoint. Already done in 3.2. >On this basis, I think that two newsgroups, > comp.unix.sysv.i286 and > comp.unix.sysv.i386 why not just comp.unix.intel for all of the above - the volume does NOT demand a split. If you must split, why not comp.unix.intel, or comp.unix.Vr3/.Vr2 >Paul Vixie -John Plocher Microport Systems