21 Feb
2006
21 Feb
'06
3:46 a.m.
Duncan Anderson asks:
Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under
the impression that it
was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?
SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
StarLAN hardware for it.
21 Feb
21 Feb
4:52 a.m.
New subject: AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Duncan Anderson asks:
There is indeed an ethernet interface for
the UNIXpc, but they are exceedingly difficult
to come by. It's separate from the StarLAN card.
Thanks for that bit of information. I had been
under the impression that it
was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?
SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
StarLAN hardware for it. From the 3b1 FAQ:
"If you want to connect your UNIX PC to a *real* Ethernet,
you'll need to hunt down the AT&T UNIX PC Ethernet board. This board
runs a version of the TCP/IP drivers developed by Wollogong. The
board will require the proper cables, as well as a transceiver. This
increases the cost of Ethernet interconnectability. The Wollogong
TCP/IP drivers are an older version not supported by Wollogong
anymore. It's generally acknowledged that there are many bugs, and
the throughput of the board is nowhere near what Ethernet should be
getting. (People report that throughput with the Starlan-1 board was
better than the TCP/IP Ethernet board, which shouldn't be the case.)"
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/
There are also information and schematics pertaining
to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
for interested parties.
Regards,
---corey
8:56 a.m.
New subject: AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 05:46, Brian S Walden wrote:
Duncan Anderson asks:
Well I was thinking more along the lines of PPP or SLIP.
cheers
Duncan
___________________________________________________________
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online!
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
Thanks for that bit of information. I had been
under the impression that
it was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and
3? If there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP
network?
SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
StarLAN hardware for it.
8:58 a.m.
New subject: AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 06:52, Corey Lindsly wrote:
<snip>
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/
There are also information and schematics pertaining
to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
for interested parties.
Regards,
---corey
Would manual have any schematics and information regarding the power supply?
regards
Duncan
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
5 p.m.
New subject: AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Brian S Walden wrote:
A slightly awkward [1] but quite comfortable approach to
distinguish the Research/AT&T releases is identifying the shell.
New in the SVR3 shell (features easy to test):
- "getopts" built-in
- "read" knows the error message "missing arguments"
(- "cd" diagnostics. Some vendors modified these again, though.
Stock SVR3: cd formerly only knew "bad directory" and now there
are "not a directory", "does not exist", "permission
denied" and
two diagnostics concerning remote file systems.)
[1] Not really awkward, because the introduction of shell functions
is a quite frequently mentioned feature to identify SVR2.
Duncan Anderson asks:
Is the lack of
streams the main difference between the 2 and 3?
SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong.
6640
days inactive
6640
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Brian S Walden -
corey＠lod.com -
Duncan Anderson -
Sven Mascheck