NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/coherent/6639

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 5.4 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Socket Emulation
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk
From: [e-mail] (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:19:46 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome![e-mail] (Rick Kelly)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 116

In article <[e-mail]> "Coherent operating system" <[e-mail]> writes:
>> >Yikes!  I had *thought* that Coherent was a relatively decent OS until now.
>> >I can understand not having IP ("net") sockets, but you're gonna have a bad
>> >time porting anything like a MUD if it won't even do UNIX (filesystem) ones.
>>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ?
>
>        He's talking about UNIX family sockets which you can use if you don't
>have TCP/IP support.  Linux has both.

This isn't a feature in the AT&T SVR3.2 sources.  The only socket support is
in TCP/IP.

>> >Jeeez...  TinyMUSH, PennMUSH, and DikuMUD compile out-of-the-box under Linux.
>> >Even LP-MUD compiles without too much twiddling.   ...and Linux is FREE.
>> >
>> >How much did you pay for COH?  Is it *refundable*?
>>
>> What's the support telephone number for Linux?
>
>        Most support seems best on the net.  Linux questions get answers
>in a week at the worst, a few hours usually.  Same with Coherent.  I
>think MWC does an OK job and their support is what your $99 gets you.
>Which is good.  Still, support for any system is best online.  PC and
>Macintosh users get their best support online, not a phone line to the
>company.  Of course, I realize some don't have access to BBS and networks
>but that is rapidly changing.

A friend of mine just lost his Linux "support", unless he goes through me,
or comes here to read and post.

>> Why does the extfs eat directories?
>
>        Where did you hear it did?  I have always used it and it is rock-
>solid.  I spent four hours trying to crash it on purpose one day by turning
>the system off without sync'ing, overloading the system, opening all the
>file handles, etc.  Works just fine.  I have NEVER had a file system
>crash under Linux and I certainly had a few under Coherent.

A friend of mine has been using extfs, but he had to switch back to the
Minix file system, as directories were disappearing.

>        How about this...  Why can't Coherent mount any file system other
>than it's little V7 file system?  Right now, I have a 212meg extended
>file system mounted, a 125meg DOS file system mounted, and a MINIX floppy
>file system mounted.  Again, no problems with the DOS file system and I
>have used it as if it were just another Linux file system with short names
>and never once did I have a crash.  Plus, it's a lot easier than using all
>those dostool programs to manipulate files.

Well, I'm not a MSDOS weenie.

> 6
>xW0%]2b _" >9F    i

What was this?

>> Why doesn't lpr work on Linux?
>
>        Perhaps because it wasn't compiled?  Sure as hell works good on
>my system.

A lot of people on comp.os.linux seem to have problems with it.

>> How many iBCS binaries run on Linux?
>
>        None.  But then, plenty won't run under Coherent.  Further,
>source code compatibility is more important to Coherent and Linux at
>this point.
>>
>> Why is it so difficult to get Linux to boot directly from a hard disk?

>        Why do you think it is?  Getting Linux to boot is easy.  It took
>me about five minutes.  LILO, the Linux loader, is one of the simplest and
>best loaders around.  It can boot any OS from any partition on any drive.
>I just configured it and ran install.  Pretty simple if you ask me.

Then why are people posting so many problems on comp.os.linux?

The docs aren't very clear.

>> Where can I buy the type set, professionally written manual for Linux?
>
>        I got one at Waldensoft for $25.  It's title said something about
>Posix and System 5...  I also use my Coherent manual...  Documentation
>for Linux is growing daily and the doc group is seeking publishers (cheap
>ones from China...:-).  When finished, it will be better than what you
>get for Coherent simply because there is more of it.  Yeah, I know there
>isn't (yet) a company behind it but it's very good.  All the Coherent
>manual contains is the man pages, and index, and a few short tutorials.
>Don't get me wrong, I like it.  But it's not earth-shattering by any means.


>> Go back to comp.os.linux and stop trying to start flame wars.
>
>        Agreed.  But then, you just flamed and you were wrong.  I have both
>systems (even tried MINIX once) and I like Coherent.  But it is stupid to
>deny the problems of an OS just because you like it.  I could give you
>a plenty long list of gripes I have with Linux and Coherent both.  It just
>so happens that Linux comes out on top right now and I can't wait for
>MWC to add needed features, bux fixes, and performance enhancements to
>Coherent.  Why should I when Linux delivers it now.

And right now, Coherent is doing what I want it to do, and people still
seem to be having certain basic problems with Linux that would keep me
from using it as a full time OS.

And with Coherent, I can write software and take the compiled binaries to
SCO runtime only boxes, for which I get paid.

Linux is very nice, but it is not robust enough, nor does it fulfill my
needs.

--

Rick Kelly    rmkhome![e-mail]    merk!rmkhome!rmk    [e-mail]