Very Computer

Does Solaris have BSD Sockets of both the Unix and Internet types?
I imagine since it's AT&T it will have shared memory.

Does it have the "dump" utility?  if not, what backup type utility
does it have in its place?  Are the utilities mostly AT&T, or does
it preserve the BSD like utilities of SunOS?  if not, can I get
copies of those BSD utilites that will run on Solaris 2.0? (ie. if
I want a version of ps that has bsd options instead of at&t options,
can I get one that will run on solaris 2.0?) (this might be an
interesting market place for BSDI...)

(also, in that last question, can I get a copy of dump that runs on
solaris 2.0?)

Last but not least.. someone please ask sun why they have done this
henous act to us :-)

Sorry if some parts are dumb questions.. I'm just trying to get
unambiguous, detailed answers to those things I don't want to
have to speculate about.

John

All opinions expressed here are my own, and no one elses.
--If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, leave the area immediately,
  seek shelter, and cover your head.  Do NOT Taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Quote:>     I'm getting ready to buy a workstation..and I'm basically looking
>at a used SS2, a new IPX, or a new SparcClassic.  The advantage of the
>first two, is that they run SunOS 4... unfortunately, the Classic only
>runs Solaris 2.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate, is that I very
>much prefer the BSD programming model.

Quote:> I mean.. if I have a program that uses bsd kernel calls (ioctl and fcntl
> type things),

Quote:> will it compile under Solaris 2.0? or will I have to re-write it around
> the AT&T type programming model?

SVR4 picked up the SunOS "ttcompat" STREAMS module, which means that if
it's been pushed onto the stream for a tty (which it should be, in
SVR4), both the traditional V7/BSD terminal "ioctl"s, and the new-style
SV "ioctl"s, should work.  (Note, BTW, that 4.3-reno and later BSD
releases have tty "ioctl"s that look a lot more like SV's than like
those of older BSD's....)

Most "fcntl()" calls came from System III, originally, so the ones that
BSD picked up from there should work mostly the same.  The ones to turn
non-blocking I/O are different (Berkeley screwed up when they picked
those up; they made them work differently - although POSIX 1003.1 says,
as I remember, "don't do that", so later BSD's will have more
S3/SV-style versions of those), and the ones to do "asynchronous I/O"
(i.e., SIGIO) don't exist in SVR4.  They may have been added to Solaris
2.0, though.

Quote:>Does Solaris have BSD Sockets of both the Unix and Internet types?

Quote:>I imagine since it's AT&T it will have shared memory.

Quote:>Does it have the "dump" utility?

Quote:>Are the utilities mostly AT&T, or does it preserve the BSD like
>utilities of SunOS?

Quote:>(ie. if
>I want a version of ps that has bsd options instead of at&t options,
>can I get one that will run on solaris 2.0?)

  Sun Microsystems Inc.   SunOS 5.0       fcs     June 1992
  sloth% /usr/ucb/ps ax
     PID  PPID TT       S  TIME SIZE  RSS COMMAND
       0     0 ?        T  0:08 sched
       1     0 ?        S  7:14 /etc/init -
       2     0 ?        S  0:00 pageout
       3     0 ?        S 312:59 fsflush
     210     1 ?        S  0:43 /usr/lib/saf/sac -t 300

        ...

A bit broken (the "SIZE" and "RSS" column headings don't belong there),
and the "TT" column is wider, but very similar to the BSD one.

Quote:>(also, in that last question, can I get a copy of dump that runs on
>solaris 2.0?)

Quote:>     I'm getting ready to buy a workstation..and I'm basically looking
>at a used SS2, a new IPX, or a new SparcClassic.  The advantage of the
>first two, is that they run SunOS 4... unfortunately, the Classic only
>runs Solaris 2.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate, is that I very
>much prefer the BSD programming model.  However, I've been told that
>Solaris 2 will be 100% source code compatable to the older versions.  Is
>this true?  and to what extent is it true? I mean.. if I have a program
>that uses bsd kernel calls (ioctl and fcntl type things), will it compile
>under Solaris 2.0? or will I have to re-write it around the AT&T type
>programming model?

Quote:>Does Solaris have BSD Sockets of both the Unix and Internet types?
>I imagine since it's AT&T it will have shared memory.

Quote:>Does it have the "dump" utility?  if not, what backup type utility
>does it have in its place?  Are the utilities mostly AT&T, or does
>it preserve the BSD like utilities of SunOS?  if not, can I get
>copies of those BSD utilites that will run on Solaris 2.0? (ie. if
>I want a version of ps that has bsd options instead of at&t options,
>can I get one that will run on solaris 2.0?) (this might be an
>interesting market place for BSDI...)

Quote:>(also, in that last question, can I get a copy of dump that runs on
>solaris 2.0?)
>Last but not least.. someone please ask sun why they have done this
>henous act to us :-)

Quote:>Sorry if some parts are dumb questions.. I'm just trying to get
>unambiguous, detailed answers to those things I don't want to
>have to speculate about.

- Jim
--

TAC System Administrator, USArmy Construction Engineering Research Labs
/* Hello, we're the government and we're here to help you. :) */

Quote:>If the program accesses the kernel (not just by system calls)

If so, then for those to whom it's not obvious why such programs would
need to be ported, kernel data structures are probably *quite* different
in Solaris 2.x, which is why programs that access those data structures
directly will need to be changed.

(Note that programs that mainly just read the process table, and maybe
process U areas, can, in Solaris 2.x, use the standard SVR4 "/proc" file
system.  That will make them more likely to run under future Solaris 2.x
releases, and under other SVR4 releases; it will also probably make them
simpler, and possibly even less likely to fail in the fashion hinted at
in the SunOS 4.x "ps" manual page:

        BUGS
             Things can change while ps is running; the picture it  gives
             is only a close approximation to the current state.

Things can still change out from under you, but "/proc" may make it
less likely to happen.)

Quote:>or if the
>program access some of the system files that have changed (like /etc/fstab =>
>/etc/vfstab), it will have to be ported.

Quote:>Last but not least.. someone please ask sun why they have done this
>henous act to us :-)

Make sense? I thought so... :-)

F  U  L  C  R  U  M                                                     ()
__________________________________________________________________________
                           Paul Rosham                                /\
                        Senior Consultant                             ""
The Fulcrum Consulting Group,
611 Brunswick St,                                Telephone: +61-3-481-6188
North Fitzroy VIC 3068, Australia                      Fax: +61-3-482-4161

Quote:>This might be true, but SunOS 4.x is not dead, and has a very large installed

It's scary.

I was recently talking to someone that I have a lot of respect for.
He's a real old-world techie from the old school of Unix and he was
talking about a total upgrade to 5.0 in his shop in a time-table that I
thought was unbelievable (i.e. soon).

I grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him.  "WHAT ARE YOU SAYING???"
He looked at me, there was no sparkle in his eye anymore.  He just
stared blankly at me, as if his eyes weren't focusing on me, but about
4 feet past my head.  In a monotone voice he said, "Oh Tom, face it.
We all know it is the direction that we will all take.  Sun is
providing such excellent tools for porting to Solaris.  Their new
machines only run 5.0.  We should all..."

"YOU'RE A POD, AREN'T YOU?  They've eaten your BRAIN HAVEN'T THEY???"

"Tom, join us and you'll see that..."

At this point I started to run.  Suddenly out of nowhere there were
thousands of people chasing me.  They all had the same blank look on
their faces.  Some of them held press releases of the SPARCServer 2000
and were saying, "It's not vapor, Tom, really!".  Some of them had
strange looking boxes with them and were chanting, "It's not 3 years
late, we just wanted didn't want the Viking to ship until we could pick
the right color!"

Finally, after chasing me for hours I got tired and they caught
up to me.  After being locked in a room, I heard the guards talking
about my appointment with Sun's VP of "Re-Education".  Mr. PipelineTool
himself.  

I wouldn't have escaped if I didn't think quickly.  I pulled out my
Auspex manual guide and showed it to the guards.  One was knocked
unconscious immediately.  Then I pulled out my pocket "vi quick-
reference guide" and held it at the other guard.

"BILL JOY DID THIS TO US!!!  HE CREATED VI AND THEN WENT ON TO CREATE
SUN TOO!  DON'T YOU REALIZE WHAT EVIL YOU WORK FOR???"

At that, the guard responded, "Hey man, I'm just a consultant!  You
can go for all I care.  I can get a job at my brother's deli.  I don't
need this [deleted]!"

And that's the end of my story.

As a post script, I just want to say that part of this story fiction
[it wasn't a vi quick-reference manual], but a lot of it really is
true.  SunOS 4.1.x is dead.  Software developers are blindly porting to
Solaris 2.x.  Why?  Because Sun is giving them really good tools to
port to Solaris 2.x (the PipelineTool).  Users are switching to it.
Why?  The software is becoming stable and new Sun machines won't run
anything else.  Worst part is, Sun knows the biggest issue is speed and
they're tuning the hell out of it and it will be as fast as 4.1.x very
soon.  Heck, even if it isn't as fast we'll never know because of the
shift to new hardware.[*]

Pessimistic?  Me?  Nah.  This happens in the computer industry all the
time.  #1 falls under it's own weight, or some tides shift more than
expected.  In the final analysis, we find that "we" (the techies)
always adjust.  We need our jobs and we work on whatever hardware and
software the job adverts are telling us we'll work on.  On the bright
side, competition has never been stronger among Unix vendors and the
demands of competition will most likely improve other aspects of the
Un*x OS's so much that we'll forget about this.

Just watch out for the pods.

Tom Limoncelli
[ Not speaking for my employer or any of my associations, or my cat. ]

* -- If the comparisons are always on SPARC 2's Sun can always claim
that the newest releases really only help multiprocessor machines which
don't run 4.1.x, so a apples-to-apples comparison can't be done.  Sadly,
this is likely to be true.
--

Reality is stranger than fiction #943247:  The IRS granted
ANS approval as a 501c3 "charity" on September 14, 1992.

   What are you raving about???   I thought you knew better than spout
nonsense like this.  Of course if you compare the early days of SV to
the most modern BSD, you can find problems but have a look at SVR4 before
posting next time!!!

   I use Solaris 2.x and:
        - no 14 characters limit in file names, instead it even accepts
          full ISO-Latin-1 file names, try that with csh and BSD!  (Yes
          the csh that comes with SVR4 understands 8 bits chars correctly!)
          True, Solaris 2.x doesn't support the SV file system, but since
          SVR4 supports the BSD FFS your argument is still bogus.  Beside
          I would be surprised if that limit still existed under the System V
          file system.
        - Sockets code runs just fine under SVR4 and will continue to do so
        - Adding a new user account has never been automated under BSD!
          while under Solaris 2.1, there is a nice admin tool to do this.
        - As for DMD5620 (?) vs VT100, check SVR4, it comes with X11
        - Csh is certainly part of SVR4, but personnaly I will surely give
          a look at ksh after all the good I've heard about it.  Beside
          I'm sick of all the bugs of csh, ever tried to write a script
          in csh?  I bet you always use sh to do so, so is BSD always
          better than AT&T?

|> Face it, dude, AT&T doesn't know UNIX from a hole in their ass.  USL is
|> even less clueful.  System V UNIX is dead.  The market opened their eyes
|> and told them "you can't possibly be serious!" and they adopted BSD as
|> the only way to keep selling licenses.  POSIX won the interface battle,
|> not SVID.  BSD won the users over.  If you think a new user would take
|> System V.[01234] seriously as a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are
|> totally out of your freaking mind.

   You seem to be way out of touch with reality.  The only thing user
cares in the battle of BSD vs AT&T is their shell and assorted windowing.
Since these stays the same under SVR4...   True, a few program have
changed, this is the price to pay to have a standard.  As for why the
BSD options in some programs have lost out to SVR3 options, look at the
market place and see who has the most machines and look at what POSIX
says.
   You seem to think POSIX went all the way to the side of BSD when
it had to choose between the two systems, go back and take a better look!
   As for the choice a new user would make, it certainly won't be BSD.
After all, who sells BSD systems these days, what is the market share?

    As for administrators, I'm one, Solaris 2.1 certainly seems a huge
step in the right direction:

        NIS+, software packaging, printer handling (yes it is different,
but much more powerful and flexible), user handling, OS installation, etc.

    It seems to me that those who whine the most about the good old
days of BSD should be the ones at the forefront of technology.  Check
out the Multi-threading, fully pre-emptive kernel, real-time scheduling,
symetric multi-processing available under Solaris 2.1 for example.

   And yes, I fully realize that we will have to port applications
over to the new OS.  But I think a lot of people are exagerating costs
of doing this.  After all, few kernel interfaces have changed for
most user programs and the pipeline tool should be able to flag all of
them such that porting time for medium applications should be really
short.

   As for buying new versions of software, we all had to do that when
we moved from Sun OS 3.5 to 4.0 and I don't seem to remember that being
less than the costs of doing so now, and we all survived and stayed
with Sun...

--

Alain Brossard, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne,
        SIC/SII, EL-Ecublens, CH-1015 Lausanne, Suisse, +41 21 693-2211

Windows/NT will probably end up as a server OS.  Microsoft will position it
to server user running Windows 3.x on a network.  It has been said by
Microsloth posters that it will be sold as Windows 3.1 NT.

As shipped, NT will not allow dumb terminals on serial ports due to the
lack of a non-console login program.  It will allow telnet sessions from
clones running Windows 3.x.

There is a good chance that NT will barely be released by the end of 1993.

It is not a substitute for UNIX, in fact it is a different market.

--

:                     So, without someone to carry that torch, BSD will
: slowly die.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
A problem we are going to have to fix. That is unless you LIKE being under
the thumb of AT&T.

There are enough talented people on this net who will work on 386BSD and
ports to other machines (In the last two days I've seen posts from people
who have a Sun 3 and HP 3000 who want 386BSD on them because they are
losing support) to keep it going. A example of good, "free" software
supported by the net and not-for-profit orig. is Elm and GNU gcc.

Sun considers gcc to be a threat to it's own C compiler. Witness the
current issue of UNIX World (I think), there is an ad for Sun's C
compiler. In the ad they list the statement, "We got the compiler for free"
as being on of the three great lies in life. The other two being, "The
check is in the mail" and "There are no bugs in the code". I have also
heard horror stories from Sun sales people about gcc. Of course the
stories are AFOAF type and the stories were almost word-for-word repeats
from differnt sales people.

Anybody in the Chicago or Minneapolis area (I live in Minneapolis and
work in Chicago) who wants a copy of 386BSD, send me email and we'll
swap tapes.*AT&T.

Josef
--
Josef Grosch         | It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, my home town...

The only reason SysV is alive is because of SVR4, and the only reason any-
one wants SVR4 is because of the BSDisms.

Mostly, folks using SunOS aren't interested in SVR4/Solaris2, because it's
a bag on the side of what they've got.

Mostly, folks using SVR3 *are* interested in SVR4 because it's something
useful on the side of the bag they've got.

USL has been trying to figure out how to incorporate BSD features to move
their OS forward to where Berkeley was a decade ago.

Quote:>...BSD is
>the property of UC California, Berkeley, and they are closing it down.

Quote:>...So, without someone to carry that torch, BSD will slowly die.  

Quote:>USL is still the 'master of the source' for Sys V...

If you could back up far enough in the source code, USL could give you one
of the better operating systems of the late '70's.  Try to imagine why
people don't care.
--

        ...Simpler is better.

ian

Quote:>> Most other major workstation vendors already use SYSV.  MAny of the

>Really?  DEC don't.  IBM don't.  HP don't really.

AIX 3.x looks more like SV than BSD in several ways, and HP-UX does
also.  (Can you say "/etc/inittab"?) Ultrix is, as I understand it, more
BSDish than SVish; anybody know what their OSF/1 release looks like in
that regard?

(The issues here are:

        1) in the "default" programming environment, do those calls with
           incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the
           "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion?

        2) in the "default" user environment, do those commands with
           incompatibly-different "BSD" and "SV" versions behave in the
           "BSD" fashion or in the "SV" fashion?

        3) do the "administrative" utilities look more like "BSD" ones,
           "SV" ones, or Something Else?

I put "BSD" and "SV" in quotes because POSIX is making both of them
change....)

Quote:>USL is
>even less clueful.  System V UNIX is dead.  The market opened their eyes
>and told them "you can't possibly be serious!" and they adopted BSD as
>the only way to keep selling licenses.  POSIX won the interface battle,
>not SVID.  BSD won the users over.  If you think a new user would take
>System V.[01234] seriously as a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are
>totally out of your freaking mind.

        If you think a new user would take System V.[01234] seriously as
        a competitor to Windows/NT or BSD, you are totally out of your
        freaking mind.

should be changed to refer to "System V.[0123]".

(And from your list of "You mean I'll have to" list, you're clearly
enumerating AT&T/USL bogosities that they've abandoned, with the
possible exception of the shell script, not enumerating stuff that's the
case with *current* SV - SVR4 supports file systems with long file
names, provides a sockets interface to TCP/IP, supports X11, and
provides the C shell for those people perverse enough to like it :-) -
so, again, you are aware that SVR4 isn't like earlier SV's.)

(Oh, and if SV sucks so badly, how come you wrote a "cron" that behaves
like SV's "cron"? :-))

 >If Sun stuck to SYSV they would steadily lose their market share
 >leadership.  Software vendors would start writing to other (SYSV based)
 >vendors first and Sun second which would cost them more market
 >share...and so on.  And eventually, instead of catching flack for
 >changing to SYSV they would be catching flack (like they do with Open
 >Look) for pushing their own way instead of following the industry.

Presumably your first sentence was intended to be "If Sun stuck to
BSD"....

OSF/1, AIX, HPUX and Irix (yes, I consider SGI major) are all strong
descendants of the system V world.  Everything from use of directories
of boot scripts (rather than the BSDish rc.* scripts) to the use of
inittabs to the man page directory structure to terminfo instead of
termcap to a SYSV cron to a SYSV line printer system to a tendency
towards STREAMS points to this.

--
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Programmer  -  Mississippi State University