home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!tarpit!tous!bilver!bill
- From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
- Subject: Re: Xenix considered harmful (was Re: SCO support - a success story)
- Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:24:08 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Sep7.022408.13517@bilver.uucp>
- References: <9209061050.AA05570@dynamix.com>
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <9209061050.AA05570@dynamix.com> david@dynamix.com (David L Jarvis) writes:
- >> So what are the "good reasons" to drop Xenix/286 support? As far as I
-
- >How about all those segmentation violations that arose from the 286 not
- >having hardware memory protection? The 286 was a bastardized 186, and both
- >were brain-dead. My opinions are based on the hardware, not the OS.
- >But again, this is a digression.
-
- Segmentation Violations! Well I was working on a machine that kept
- getting them. Running Unix V.3.2 on a WE 32100 chip. AT&T 3B series.
- We couldn't figure it out, and AT&T finally went back to their code,
- and it wasn't their either.
-
- Turns out one of the application programs (fairly popular in the small
- Xenix/Unix systems market, but left unamed) was responsible.
-
- When AT&T said it wasn't their, we got tech support from the software
- vendor.
-
- Their conversation was something like this -
-
- "Segmentation Violation - yes that's the error we print whenever we
- can't figure out what the real error is".
-
- Gimme a break!!!
-
- --
- Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org bill.vermillion@oau.org
- - bill@bilver.uucp
- - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
-
-