Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.sysv386:24512 comp.unix.sys5.r4:172 comp.unix.sys5.r3:26 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:271 comp.unix.bsd:6250 comp.os.linux:12038 comp.os.mach:2258 comp.windows.x:46013
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux,comp.os.mach,comp.windows.x
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Announcing the availability of XFree86 1.1
Message-ID: <1992Oct8.022731.17743@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1992Oct3.192551.1831@netcom.com> <1992Oct3.215041.17541@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <1992Oct7.194931.16296@crd.ge.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 02:27:31 GMT
Lines: 47
In article <1992Oct7.194931.16296@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.215041.17541@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, dwex@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.e.wexelblat) writes:
>
>| This, by the way, is a perfect example of why SVR4 is better than SCO.
>| We have a single binary kit, ~20MB compressed, that works on SVR4 from 7
>| different vendors.
>
>This may come as a shock, but V.3 worked that way, too, and Xenix/386
>binaries will run on virtually anything. And SCO binaries compiles for
>8086 running in compatible library mode (-compat?) will run all the way
>back to old Altos, etc, and forward to Destiny.
Sorry to disagree here, but the Altos 886 and 986 I used to play with
wouldn't rung SCO binaries no matter what contortions you went through. I
did have a copy of SCO's 8086 Xenix for a while, and it's binaries ran on
a 986 (sorta), but this is apparently a long dead product.
886 and 986 binaries on the other hand, had no trouble running on SCO.
The SCO 80286 (and only the 80286) binaries created in compatability mode
*did* run on Intel 320's and Cubix boxes for "Medium" and "Small" models.
The main problem is incompatabilites in /usr/include/sys/*.h files; in
particular, ioctl() parameters for device controls (like setting a terminal
in "raw" mode) and a number of librarie routines (like "getlogname()")
failed on the SCO-on-Altos but not on the Altos-on-SCO code. In addition,
the SCO-on-Altos on worked on some models of Altos, like the 1086 and 2086,
and revisions of Altos Xenix in excess of 3.1c (where Altos fixed their
sbrk() system call).
SCO Xenix is a tight, fast system (especially compared to UNIX), but for
bode for distribution I always compiled on an Altos developement system
loaded on an SCO box... loading it is a trip, but ends up being worth
it.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------