UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Dave Mee » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00



For those that care...

Ok.. just got permission to announce to anyone who's interested...

I have just completed the initial port of UniVerse to Linux (Redhat).  
Ardent has officially committed to releasing UniVerse for Linux in the
very near future.  It still has to go through full testing, etc...

Unfortunately, I don't have release dates, pricing, or any other
information (I'm in engineering.. they never tell me those kinds of
things ;))

Just thought some would be interested...
--
David T. Meeks                     || "But here I am in limbo, dark and deep
Principal Software Engineer        ||  and thick with clouds o'erspread
Ardent Software, Inc.              ||  the eons tick like seconds in

 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Tom Packer » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Any chance you have any information about a Unidata Release on Linux?

>For those that care...

>Ok.. just got permission to announce to anyone who's interested...

>I have just completed the initial port of UniVerse to Linux (Redhat).
>Ardent has officially committed to releasing UniVerse for Linux in the
>very near future.  It still has to go through full testing, etc...


 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Steven Ada » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00



>For those that care...

>Ok.. just got permission to announce to anyone who's interested...

>I have just completed the initial port of UniVerse to Linux (Redhat).  

[snip]

Will Ardent only support UniVerse on the RedHat distribution of Linux,
or will other distributions be supported as well. I am mostly interested
in the Slackware distribution, as that is the one I have been running.
Are there are RedHat-specific packages required for UniVerse to run
and/or install?

--

 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Brian Bon » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00


Just out of curiosity - how difficult was the port? Say, compared from one
Unix to another?


>For those that care...

>Ok.. just got permission to announce to anyone who's interested...

>I have just completed the initial port of UniVerse to Linux (Redhat).
>Ardent has officially committed to releasing UniVerse for Linux in the
>very near future.  It still has to go through full testing, etc...

>Unfortunately, I don't have release dates, pricing, or any other
>information (I'm in engineering.. they never tell me those kinds of
>things ;))

>Just thought some would be interested...
>--
>David T. Meeks                     || "But here I am in limbo, dark and
deep
>Principal Software Engineer        ||  and thick with clouds o'erspread
>Ardent Software, Inc.              ||  the eons tick like seconds in


dead..."-Discipline
 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by David Wolverto » Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:00:00


I would guess that all things being equal, we'll all be dealing Red Hat - It
has share of mind that is scary - some of my least conscious customers have
heard of it and think/know "it's a good thing" ... so look forward to using
your Slackware gained knowledge to install RH commercial products...
Besides, what corporate manager will sign a Purchase Order for
*Slack*ware?? - The name will need a revamp for corporate America! <g>



>>For those that care...

>>Ok.. just got permission to announce to anyone who's interested...

>>I have just completed the initial port of UniVerse to Linux (Redhat).
>[snip]

>Will Ardent only support UniVerse on the RedHat distribution of Linux,
>or will other distributions be supported as well. I am mostly interested
>in the Slackware distribution, as that is the one I have been running.
>Are there are RedHat-specific packages required for UniVerse to run
>and/or install?

>--


 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Dave Mee » Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:00:00



>Just out of curiosity - how difficult was the port? Say, compared from one
>Unix to another?

Well, it's hard to say, exactly, for a number of reasons, two of which are:

a)  I can't say yet that the port is DONE...  The 'initial' port is done,
        meaning I've got everything to compile/build/etc...  Base operation
        of certain components have been verified.  However, we will begin
        installation/testing this coming week.  So, it could require a
        significant amount of additional work.
b)  Porting isn't my primary function.  I'm one of the developers.  However,
        with Release 9.5 (and the most recent patch releases) put to bed,
        I had a bit of free time, and our porting group was swamped with
        a few things, so I was asked to help out.

Overall, it was relatively smooth.  A number of issues I can remember:


                It uses the gnu-make, which just flat out didn't work for
                out build.  We used the 'pmake' process instead, and it also
                had some odd problems that took us awhile to get through
        b)  system configuration.  The base system is horribly configured,
                especially regarding things like semaphores/shared memory.
        c)  uses 'flex' instead of 'lex'.  And, while it claims to include
                support for certain constructs (standard REJECT phrase), I've
                yet to find it anywhere... had to write our own part...  
        d)  standard problems with things being located in different locations,
                defined different, etc...

Anyway, after getting through the make processor issues, things went pretty
smoothly.  

Ask me in another 2 weeks if I think the same way :) :)
--
David T. Meeks                     || "But here I am in limbo, dark and deep
Principal Software Engineer        ||  and thick with clouds o'erspread
Ardent Software, Inc.              ||  the eons tick like seconds in

 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Gulraj Rijhwa » Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:00:00




Quote:> I would guess that all things being equal, we'll all be dealing Red Hat - It
> has share of mind that is scary - some of my least conscious customers have
> heard of it and think/know "it's a good thing" ... so look forward to using
> your Slackware gained knowledge to install RH commercial products...

But isn't that basically Microsoft's strength?  Surely, if one is
looking to open up the market place with an open product, the last
thing one wants to do is pander to a closed mind and allow any
single distribution to gain * and start dictating the
field?  That would be defeating the object somewhat.
--
Gulraj Rijhwani             \\  Courtfields Limited, Chessington, Surrey, UK

http://www.veryComputer.com/ \\  Mobile: 0976 431936
----- Specialist in Pick, Unidata, datacomms and general connectivity -----
All material copyright Gulraj Rijhwani and Courtfields.  ALL RIGHTS RETAINED.
 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Terry Layn » Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:00:00


I apologize in advance for not finding the exact reference, but
in a recent Linux Journal article a representative of Informix
said that the port to Linux amounted to typing in "make" and
hitting return.  They started with their Solaris base and the
thing built and worked immediately.  He went on to say that
they spent three months testing, but never had to make any
significant changes.

Terry Layne




>>Just out of curiosity - how difficult was the port? Say, compared from one
>>Unix to another?

>Well, it's hard to say, exactly, for a number of reasons, two of which are:

>a)  I can't say yet that the port is DONE...  The 'initial' port is done,
> meaning I've got everything to compile/build/etc...  Base operation
> of certain components have been verified.  However, we will begin
> installation/testing this coming week.  So, it could require a
> significant amount of additional work.
>b)  Porting isn't my primary function.  I'm one of the developers.
However,
> with Release 9.5 (and the most recent patch releases) put to bed,
> I had a bit of free time, and our porting group was swamped with
> a few things, so I was asked to help out.

>Overall, it was relatively smooth.  A number of issues I can remember:


> It uses the gnu-make, which just flat out didn't work for
> out build.  We used the 'pmake' process instead, and it also
> had some odd problems that took us awhile to get through
> b)  system configuration.  The base system is horribly configured,
> especially regarding things like semaphores/shared memory.
> c)  uses 'flex' instead of 'lex'.  And, while it claims to include
> support for certain constructs (standard REJECT phrase), I've
> yet to find it anywhere... had to write our own part...
> d)  standard problems with things being located in different locations,
> defined different, etc...

>Anyway, after getting through the make processor issues, things went pretty
>smoothly.

>Ask me in another 2 weeks if I think the same way :) :)
>--
>David T. Meeks                     || "But here I am in limbo, dark and
deep
>Principal Software Engineer        ||  and thick with clouds o'erspread
>Ardent Software, Inc.              ||  the eons tick like seconds in


dead..."-Discipline
 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Pete Jewel » Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:00:00




> >Just out of curiosity - how difficult was the port? Say, compared from one
> >Unix to another?
> Overall, it was relatively smooth.  A number of issues I can remember:


>                 It uses the gnu-make, which just flat out didn't work for
>                 out build.  We used the 'pmake' process instead, and it also
>                 had some odd problems that took us awhile to get through
>         b)  system configuration.  The base system is horribly configured,
>                 especially regarding things like semaphores/shared memory.
>         c)  uses 'flex' instead of 'lex'.  And, while it claims to include
>                 support for certain constructs (standard REJECT phrase), I've
>                 yet to find it anywhere... had to write our own part...
>         d)  standard problems with things being located in different locations,
>                 defined different, etc...

It's a shame you've plumped for the Redhat distribution.  On the Window Maker
email list there has been a fairly large discussion regarding how non standard
Redhat installations are, in as much as not putting libraries, etc, in standard
places.  This has caused users of Redhat 5.2 to have (sometimes) immense
difficulties getting Window Maker to compile.

--
Pete

-- An ulcer is what you get mountain climbing over molehills. --

 
 
 

UniVerse on Linux... It's official...

Post by Bill » Sat, 20 Feb 1999 04:00:00






> > I would guess that all things being equal, we'll all be dealing Red Hat
- It
> > has share of mind that is scary - some of my least conscious customers
have
> > heard of it and think/know "it's a good thing" ... so look forward to
using
> > your Slackware gained knowledge to install RH commercial products...

> But isn't that basically Microsoft's strength?  Surely, if one is
> looking to open up the market place with an open product, the last
> thing one wants to do is pander to a closed mind and allow any
> single distribution to gain * and start dictating the
> field?  That would be defeating the object somewhat.

Gulraj:

This is true.  However, look at what happens to a fractured market (mvDBMS
is too busy canibalizing each other instead of 'going where noone has gone
before').  Microsoft, Oracle, etc can make computing life a lot easier.
Think how much easier it's been since Pick has picked up some of the BASIC
syntax of uV (Prime).  As all the variants of Pick use standard commands,
programming is much easier.

I, personally, would prefer to be able to code once for any mvDBMS product.
 Sometimes a consolidation is healthy, sometimes not.  IMHO of course.