30 Mar
2004
30 Mar
'04
2:04 a.m.
I'm sorry, but I've worked extensively on many differen't unices, and AIX is
truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with so you don't keep
having to switch mentality between AIX and everything else...
Jay
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
30 Mar
30 Mar
4:24 p.m.
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Jay West wrote:
I'm sorry, but I've worked extensively on many
differen't unices, and AIX is
truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with so you don't keep
having to switch mentality between AIX and everything else...
Ah, but there's your problem. You're thinking that AIX is unix. It _is_
UNIX(tm), but it really really isn't unix. It's a very proprietary OS
with a very slick unix user interface and API.
Doc
31 Mar
31 Mar
1:15 p.m.
Ah, but there's your problem. You're
thinking that AIX is unix. It _is_
UNIX(tm), but it really really isn't unix. It's a very proprietary OS
with a very slick unix user interface and API.
Yes, under the covers it apparently shares a bit with OS/400.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
1 Apr
1 Apr
1:43 a.m.
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 19:15, William Donzelli wrote:
Umm, no. AIX has nothing in common with OS/400. The main reason is
that OS/400 didn't (doesn't) run on the 32-bit POWER. It was only when
IBM started to move to 64-bits that the Austin lab (home of POWER & AIX)
and Rochester lab (home of AS/400 & OS/400) were told to build 1 64-bit
processor that could be used by both.
OS/400 uses an extra bit (33-bits and 65-bits) for it's weird protection
scheme.
It is true that the AIX kernel (on POWER & PPC) was a custom written
control program (written at T.J. Watson Research Center) with UNIX
semanitics layered on top. This was to take full advantage of the
POWER's architecture (especially in the VM area) that would have been
too much work to adapt a "standard" unix kernel to.
--
TTFN - Guy
Ah, but
there's your problem. You're thinking that AIX is unix. It _is_
UNIX(tm), but it really really isn't unix. It's a very proprietary OS
with a very slick unix user interface and API.
Yes, under the covers it apparently shares a bit with OS/400.
2:25 a.m.
Umm, no. AIX has nothing in common with OS/400.
My source is "Introduction to the RS/6000", and official IBM document from
the very beginning of the line. If you give me some time, I could find the
book and give the IBM number. It is a thick engineering/sales freebie, and
has quite a few details of the internals of POWER and AIX (although not
enough to do anything fun). It states that a some of the aspects of AIX
were taken from OS/400 (I think aspects of the file system, but don't
quote me on that until I find the book).
It is true that the AIX kernel (on POWER & PPC)
was a custom written
control program (written at T.J. Watson Research Center) with UNIX
semanitics layered on top. This was to take full advantage of the
POWER's architecture (especially in the VM area) that would have been
too much work to adapt a "standard" unix kernel to.
Well, sort of. AIX has a custom kernel, but was designed to be easily
ported to other architectures - namely Intel architectures. This is also
mentioned in the above document. This actually happened with the T386 and
T960 router cards, used with the old NSFnet RS/6000-T3Bs. Each router card
runs a cut down AIX on 80386 or 80960 microprocessors, and hadles all of
the routing duties - the RS/6000 is just there for the ride,
basically. These routing cards today are rarer than hen's teeth (look for
extra thick MCA cards (T960), or even extra tall ones (T386)).
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
2:44 a.m.
On Thursday 01 April 2004 11:25, William Donzelli wrote:
Well, sort of. AIX has a custom kernel, but was
designed to be easily
ported to other architectures - namely Intel architectures. This is
Erm, methinks this copy of AIX-PS/2 I have is older than any RS/6000...
so unless they used AIX on the RT/PC (which I don't think they did),
I'm going to go with "ported to other architectures - namely POWER".
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
3:36 a.m.
On Thursday 01 April 2004 08:44, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Erm, methinks this copy of AIX-PS/2 I have is older
than any RS/6000...
so unless they used AIX on the RT/PC (which I don't think they did),
I'm going to go with "ported to other architectures - namely POWER".
AIX was the OS for the RT/PC (We had one before we picked up a "real" POWER
system).
AIX-PS2 came out after the RT/PC AIX - and was never popular. Like the
concept of putting what was supposed to be an enterprise OS on "toy" hardware
- although I remember charging $3,000 - $10,000 for large disks (300MB) on
PS/2 Servers around 1987,88. The margins were wonderful then....
By the early '90s we used to charge $15,000 for upgrade memory for large AIX
systems - and that was at a 50% discount from IBM's list price. Someday I'll
have to look up in our archives to see how much memory that bought (for sure
not a lot by todays standards!).
Lyle
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
3:58 a.m.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
On Thursday 01 April 2004 11:25, William Donzelli
wrote:
My PC/RT runs AIX v2.2.
I _think_ AIX-POWER predates the PS/2 version, but I'm not certain. I
would be glad to compare system file ctimes on the relative releases, if
I had a copy of the PS/2 distribution.
Hint, hint, wink wink....
Doc
Well, sort of. AIX has a custom kernel, but was
designed to be easily
ported to other architectures - namely Intel architectures. This is
Erm, methinks this copy of AIX-PS/2 I have is older than any RS/6000...
so unless they used AIX on the RT/PC (which I don't think they did),
I'm going to go with "ported to other architectures - namely POWER".
8:25 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 09:58, Doc Shipley wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Remember AIX is *any* *IX that IBM sells/sold. There was also an
AIX/370. There was little to no code sharing between AIX/RT, AIX PS/2
(AIX/370 and AIX PS/2 actually shared alot of code -- but that was on
purpose -- they were designed as complimentary products) and what we
know and love as current AIX on POWER and PPC.
On Thursday 01 April 2004 11:25, William Donzelli
wrote:
My PC/RT runs AIX v2.2.
I _think_ AIX-POWER predates the PS/2 version, but I'm not certain. I
would be glad to compare system file ctimes on the relative releases, if
I had a copy of the PS/2 distribution.
Hint, hint, wink wink....
Well, sort of. AIX has a custom kernel, but was
designed to be easily
ported to other architectures - namely Intel architectures. This is
Erm, methinks this copy of AIX-PS/2 I have is older than any RS/6000...
so unless they used AIX on the RT/PC (which I don't think they did),
I'm going to go with "ported to other architectures - namely POWER".
Doc
--
TTFN - Guy
9:06 a.m.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 09:58, Doc Shipley wrote:
Oh, I know, but I'd still love to have a PS/2 running IBM "unix".
I have to agree, though, that I haven't found a lot of similarity between
what's installed on the RT and what I run on my 43Ps.
Doc
My PC/RT runs AIX v2.2.
I _think_ AIX-POWER predates the PS/2 version, but I'm not certain. I
would be glad to compare system file ctimes on the relative releases, if
I had a copy of the PS/2 distribution.
Hint, hint, wink wink....
Remember AIX is *any* *IX that IBM sells/sold. There was also an
AIX/370. There was little to no code sharing between AIX/RT, AIX PS/2
(AIX/370 and AIX PS/2 actually shared alot of code -- but that was on
purpose -- they were designed as complimentary products) and what we
know and love as current AIX on POWER and PPC. 
3:46 p.m.
New subject: IBM PC-RT (was: AIX)
Quothe Doc Shipley, from writings of Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 05:06:34PM -0600:
I have to agree, though, that I haven't found a
lot of similarity between
what's installed on the RT and what I run on my 43Ps.
Speaking of the RT, did anyone ever get these to work with any sort of
easily obtainable hard drives? Finding ESDI drives that would work was
somewhat of a pain, and is why I stopped using my RT (hmmm... I wonder
if it still works?)
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved | My VAX | an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
www.rddavis.org | runs VMS & | her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
410-744-4900 | doesn't crash!| beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
3:53 p.m.
New subject: IBM PC-RT (was: AIX)
On 2 Apr 2004, R. D. Davis wrote:
Quothe Doc Shipley, from writings of Thu, Apr 01, 2004
at 05:06:34PM -0600:
Mine's running an old ISA Dell I/O card with 2x 5.25" floppy drives and a
Seagate 280MB IDE Medalist hanging off it. I have the bookmark for the
instructions somewhere, but it boils down to needing an IDE adapter that's
pretty brainless, and that either has no serial ports or can be turned off,
a Seagate Medalist <2GB, a goat, and 2 plucked chickens.
I seriously did have to beat the drive repeatedly with the AOS LL-format
utility to get it running. After it took a BSD filesystem, it then
happily accepted TLC from the VM tools.
Apparently, *only* the Medalist line supports an arcane instruction or
sense bit or something that the ESDI adapter used and the system firmware
wants to see. And, at this point, I'm not sure that a <2GB Medalist
qualifies as "easily obtainable". ;)
At that point I was able to power up the RT without dimming my office
lights. Three very tired E70s suck some serious amps spooling up.
I'd dearly love to snarf a mouse and a Matrox graphics adapter for the
thing, but it's one of my pride & joy items just as it is.
Doc
I have to agree, though, that I haven't
found a lot of similarity between
what's installed on the RT and what I run on my 43Ps.
Speaking of the RT, did anyone ever get these to work with any sort of
easily obtainable hard drives? Finding ESDI drives that would work was
somewhat of a pain, and is why I stopped using my RT (hmmm... I wonder
if it still works?) 
6:16 p.m.
New subject: IBM PC-RT (was: AIX)
Well... since I am still awake....
Other than the older MFM/RLL stuff that probably will work if you can
still find the IBM drives (I guess this was inherited, as the ps/2 mod
60 based 6152s used the stock "R"s, so was that RLL?, if I remember
right, 40s or 70s I think, but I never saw anything but "E"-series ESDI
drives in the towers, in a few sizes, 70, something around 100, and
then the big 310). I think that some really old adaptec SCSI adapter
was also supported (forget the model # right now, think it was the
aha-1522 but with a less common letter?) & that was back in the days of
small SCSI drives (sub-1GB) ... of course, that SCSI card wasn't
"easily obtainable" several years ago when I thought about trying this
under AOS (someone had ported the drivers), so I don't know if anyone
is out there still doing this or what might be out there still. I know
that there was even a limitation on the ESDI drives that would work....
something about a short pulse that was odd (so you had to get a
specific version of the Maxtor 310MB drive & other ESDIs we tried
wouldn't work). Most info is in the RT FAQ
[http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/ibmrt/faqs/], so don't trust
my bad memory, look it up... =-) ANywho... I still have some of this
gear, but are there others out there with it too?
-j
On Apr 2, 2004, at 12:53 AM, Doc Shipley wrote:
On 2 Apr 2004, R. D. Davis wrote:
Jeff Brendle (bli(a)psu.edu)
Penn State - E & M S
Quothe Doc Shipley, from writings of Thu, Apr 01,
2004 at 05:06:34PM
-0600:
Mine's running an old ISA Dell I/O card with 2x 5.25" floppy drives
and a
Seagate 280MB IDE Medalist hanging off it. I have the bookmark for the
instructions somewhere, but it boils down to needing an IDE adapter
that's
pretty brainless, and that either has no serial ports or can be turned
off,
a Seagate Medalist <2GB, a goat, and 2 plucked chickens.
I seriously did have to beat the drive repeatedly with the AOS
LL-format
utility to get it running. After it took a BSD filesystem, it then
happily accepted TLC from the VM tools.
Apparently, *only* the Medalist line supports an arcane instruction
or
sense bit or something that the ESDI adapter used and the system
firmware
wants to see. And, at this point, I'm not sure that a <2GB Medalist
qualifies as "easily obtainable". ;)
At that point I was able to power up the RT without dimming my office
lights. Three very tired E70s suck some serious amps spooling up.
I'd dearly love to snarf a mouse and a Matrox graphics adapter for
the
thing, but it's one of my pride & joy items just as it is.
Doc
I have to agree, though, that I haven't
found a lot of similarity
between
what's installed on the RT and what I run on my 43Ps.
Speaking of the RT, did anyone ever get these to work with any sort of
easily obtainable hard drives? Finding ESDI drives that would work
was
somewhat of a pain, and is why I stopped using my RT (hmmm... I wonder
if it still works?)
2 Apr
2 Apr
5:35 p.m.
New subject: IBM PC-RT (was: AIX)
Quothe Jeff Brendle, from writings of Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:16:32AM -0500:
Other than the older MFM/RLL stuff that probably will
work if you can
still find the IBM drives (I guess this was inherited, as the ps/2 mod
There's one full-height one around here somewhere, IIRC... not very
much capacity, however; didn't come with this system.
60 based 6152s used the stock "R"s, so was
that RLL?, if I remember
right, 40s or 70s I think, but I never saw anything but "E"-series ESDI
drives in the towers, in a few sizes, 70, something around 100, and
then the big 310). I think that some really old
adaptec SCSI adapter
It's been so long since I've tried to use this machine, that I forget
exactly what's in it. Originally, it had three ESDI hard drives in
it, two 70 and one 40, or vice versa, IIRC. I swapped one of the
drives with a 330MB Micropolis, and that worked, but one of the drives
soon bit the dust, or there was some sort of weird error message;
trying to remember. Going to have to power it up and see what
happens... To confuse me all the more, watch it decide not to show me
the error message and boot instead. :-)
was also supported (forget the model # right now,
think it was the
aha-1522 but with a less common letter?) & that was back in the days of
small SCSI drives (sub-1GB) ... of course, that SCSI card wasn't
"easily obtainable" several years ago when I thought about trying this
under AOS (someone had ported the drivers), so I don't know if anyone
is out there still doing this or what might be out there still. I know
that there was even a limitation on the ESDI drives that would work....
something about a short pulse that was odd (so you had to get a
specific version of the Maxtor 310MB drive & other ESDIs we tried
Will have to try to get to that drive and see what the model number
is; should have at least one spare similar drive for emergencies if
it's still useable.
wouldn't work). Most info is in the RT FAQ
[http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/ibmrt/faqs/], so don't trust
my bad memory, look it up... =-) ANywho... I still have some of this
Thanks. Time to take another look... it hadn't changed the last time I
looked at it though; I was just wondering if anything had changed
since the FAQ was last updated.
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved | My VAX | an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
www.rddavis.org | runs VMS & | her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
410-744-4900 | doesn't crash!| beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
1 Apr
1 Apr
8:23 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 08:25, William Donzelli wrote:
Maybe some design concepts, but there was *no* code in common.
No, the AIX kernel was *not* easily ported to other architectures.
That's why OSF chose Mach for the OSF/1 kernel. I've been through the
AIX kernel source (used to work in Austin) and I can tell you it is
*very* specific to the POWER architecture. The VM (which permeates the
entire kernel -- address space is free) is welded to the POWER's MMU
design.
--
TTFN - Guy
Umm, no. AIX
has nothing in common with OS/400.
My source is "Introduction to the RS/6000", and official IBM document from
the very beginning of the line. If you give me some time, I could find the
book and give the IBM number. It is a thick engineering/sales freebie, and
has quite a few details of the internals of POWER and AIX (although not
enough to do anything fun). It states that a some of the aspects of AIX
were taken from OS/400 (I think aspects of the file system, but don't
quote me on that until I find the book). It is true that the AIX kernel (on POWER &
PPC) was a custom written
control program (written at T.J. Watson Research Center) with UNIX
semanitics layered on top. This was to take full advantage of the
POWER's architecture (especially in the VM area) that would have been
too much work to adapt a "standard" unix kernel to.
Well, sort of. AIX has a custom kernel, but was designed to be easily
ported to other architectures - namely Intel architectures. This is also
mentioned in the above document. This actually happened with the T386 and
T960 router cards, used with the old NSFnet RS/6000-T3Bs. Each router card
runs a cut down AIX on 80386 or 80960 microprocessors, and hadles all of
the routing duties - the RS/6000 is just there for the ride,
basically. These routing cards today are rarer than hen's teeth (look for
extra thick MCA cards (T960), or even extra tall ones (T386)).
10:45 a.m.
Maybe some design concepts, but there was *no* code in
common.
That is all I (or rather, the book) is claiming. I am not implying that
they ever shared code.
No, the AIX kernel was *not* easily ported to other
architectures.
That's why OSF chose Mach for the OSF/1 kernel. I've been through the
AIX kernel source (used to work in Austin) and I can tell you it is
*very* specific to the POWER architecture. The VM (which permeates the
entire kernel -- address space is free) is welded to the POWER's MMU
design.
Well, I will have to go and find the book (which could take a long time),
but I am pretty sure it was a major design goal for that version (AIX 3, I
think?), and as I stated, was ported to other architectures that are
not very POWER. If the book is misleading - well, then I have been
misled. However, it is an official IBM document.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
30 Mar
30 Mar
5:58 p.m.
I've worked extensively with Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and AIX for over twenty
years (not Linux - only since release 0.9?) - and in my opinion, AIX has
features that from it's inception were better than it's competitors - Logical
Volumes when no one else had them - and SMIT - which made system
administration simple. I've worked with AIX on accounts which had migrated
from mainframes to AIX - and was pleased to find it
could scale to meet the
challenge.
Many of today's *NIXes have caught up to AIX in features and function - But
that doesn't detract from its essential qualities and history.
Lyle
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 08:04, Jay West wrote:
I'm sorry, but I've worked extensively on many
differen't unices, and AIX
is truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with so you don't keep
having to switch mentality between AIX and everything else...
Jay
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
7:17 p.m.
[quoting order fixed up -dM]
Like Jay, I've worked with various different unices (for most of my
career, I was a sysadmin at a university research lab), and at one
point one of them was AIX. And I'm with Jay on this.
Perhaps SMIT makes sysadmin simple if you don't mind drinking the IBM
kool-aid - but if you're trying to manage a heterogenous pile of
machines and keep them more or less similar to one another as far as
you can, AIX is practically guaranteed to be an outlier. Way, way out.
We called it "aches" for a reason.
Or at least it was back then. I don't know what it's like now.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
I'm sorry,
but I've worked extensively on many differen't unices,
and AIX is truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with
so you don't keep having to switch mentality between AIX and
everything else...
I've worked extensively with Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and AIX
for over
twenty years (not Linux - only since release 0.9?) - and in my
opinion, AIX has features that from it's inception were better than
it's competitors - Logical Volumes when no one else had them - and
SMIT - which made system administration simple. 
31 Mar
31 Mar
11:09 a.m.
der Mouse wrote:
[quoting order fixed up -dM]
Like Jay, I've worked with various different unices (for most of my
career, I was a sysadmin at a university research lab), and at one
point one of them was AIX. And I'm with Jay on this.
Perhaps SMIT makes sysadmin simple if you don't mind drinking the IBM
kool-aid - but if you're trying to manage a heterogenous pile of
machines and keep them more or less similar to one another as far as
you can, AIX is practically guaranteed to be an outlier. Way, way out.
We called it "aches" for a reason.
I used it in the 4.x timeframe, and I generally agree with most of the
statements (both ways),
but I liked SMIT because I could view the command. It would show you
the command line
it was about to execute. I'm not generally a GUI user for admin stuff,
but the ability to setup
a complex command and then view the actual commandline statement was useful.
Kelly
I'm
sorry, but I've worked extensively on many differen't unices,
and AIX is truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with
so you don't keep having to switch mentality between AIX and
everything else...
I've worked extensively with Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and AIX for over
twenty years (not Linux - only since release 0.9?) - and in my
opinion, AIX has features that from it's inception were better than
it's competitors - Logical Volumes when no one else had them - and
SMIT - which made system administration simple.
9:53 a.m.
Lyle wrote...
I've worked extensively with Solaris, IRIX, Linux,
and AIX for over twenty
years (not Linux - only since release 0.9?) - and in my opinion, AIX has
features that from it's inception were better than it's competitors -
Logical
Volumes when no one else had them - and SMIT - which
made system
administration simple. I've worked with AIX on accounts which had
migrated
from mainframes to AIX - and was pleased to find it
could scale to meet
the
challenge.
HP has had LVM for as long as I can remember as an optional add-on, and SAM
even longer. Wasn't SAM around long before SMIT? I vaguely recall thinking
that SAM came out first and IBM copied the idea but I'm not at all sure at
this. Anyone know for sure and can set me straight?
Jay
5:59 a.m.
New subject: On topic? engine computers used in chrysler in 1980's.
Been searching the 'net and talking to dealers with little success.
I have two computers (chrysler call them Spark control computer) I'm
trying to get info on what kind of programming for different
emissions systems and two types of carbs.
Especially for chrysler 2.2L 4 cylinder engine with these computer,
controls or uses: Non-feedback or feedback carbs, has vaccum pot on
the computer itself for the advance, switches and temp sensor,
soleoids (emissions stuff and/or fuel/air mixture soleoid). Some
used O2 for the feedback carb. Hall effect sensor in disributor and
set spark advance for spark control).
Have somebody who have access to better info on those especially
emssions type (fed, calif or canadian and which carb is used?
I have two computers for the caravan (Part numbers are: 5227382
for 1986, and 5227379 for 1987.)
Cheers,
Wizard
2:10 p.m.
New subject: On topic? engine computers used in chrysler in 1980's.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero(a)sympatico.ca>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: On topic? engine computers used in chrysler in 1980's.
Been searching the 'net and talking to dealers
with little success.
I have two computers for the caravan (Part numbers are: 5227382
for 1986, and 5227379 for 1987.)
Cheers,
Wizard
head to your news feed and ask in :
rec.autos.makers.chrysler
(ask for bubba)
10:30 a.m.
On Wednesday 31 March 2004 15:53, Jay West wrote:
> Lyle wrote...
--snip--
> Volumes when no one else had them - and SMIT -
which made system
> administration simple.
HP has had LVM for as long as I can remember as an
optional add-on, and SAM
even longer.
Sun and SGI both had LVMs as add-ons later - and ultimately as an integrated
part of the standard server releases.
At the time IBM introduced a totally integrated LVM in AIX - it came under
heavy criticism from the rest of the UNIX community because disk drives in
AIX were entirely logical and not readily RAW capable. The fact that one
could add (or in some cases delete) drives and logical partitions in a
running UNIX system was critical for large commercial shops.
Wasn't SAM around long before SMIT? I vaguely
recall thinking
that SAM came out first and IBM copied the idea but I'm not at all sure at
this. Anyone know for sure and can set me straight?
I'm not sure either. I don't recollect SMIT being available with the first
release of AIX - But it was definitely available in the early eighties.
I've worked with HP-UX on 9000's - and it is relatively easy to work with -
but, in my opinion, AIX's SMIT is more complete and better integrated
(especially in logical volume management).
AIX also had from the begining and continues to have a very sophisticated and
well integrated patch management system which equals that of large enterprise
level systems (mainframes).
On another, but related topic, someone had commented on AIX and Open Source -
Early AIX releases were a pain - but later releases (say 4.3 on) were much
easier to work with. Now IBM has ported tons of freeware to AIX -
downloadable as source and binary from their AIX site - and is comfortably
Open Source friendly.
BTW: Just so you don't think I'm biased toward AIX (I'd like to think I am
"fair and balanced" ;-) Here is my picks in order of:
Favorite *NIX servers
---------------------------
Solaris
Linux
IRIX
AIX
HP-UX
Favorite *NIX workstations
---------------------------------
IRIX
Linux
Solaris
AIX
HP-UX
Lyle
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
1:07 p.m.
The fact that one
could add (or in some cases delete) drives and logical partitions in a
running UNIX system was critical for large commercial shops.
Agreed 100%. This feature has saved my bacon a few times with the boxen I
administered.
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to. -------
2:56 p.m.
One thing that AIX had before hpux is the ability to dynamically increase
the size of its lvols. HP can now do it (and has been able to for a
couple of years), but AIX has had this feature for a long time (and I was
very envious of it until hp finally added it into its unix).
-Bob
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Jay West wrote:
Lyle wrote...
I've worked extensively with Solaris, IRIX,
Linux, and AIX for over twenty
years (not Linux - only since release 0.9?) - and in my opinion, AIX has
features that from it's inception were better than it's competitors -
Logical
Volumes when no one else had them - and SMIT -
which made system
administration simple. I've worked with AIX on accounts which had
migrated
from mainframes to AIX - and was pleased to find
it could scale to meet
the
challenge.
HP has had LVM for as long as I can remember as an optional add-on, and SAM
even longer. Wasn't SAM around long before SMIT? I vaguely recall thinking
that SAM came out first and IBM copied the idea but I'm not at all sure at
this. Anyone know for sure and can set me straight?
Jay
10 Apr
10 Apr
4:35 p.m.
On 1 Apr 2004, at 14:56, Bob Brown wrote:
One thing that AIX had before hpux is the ability to
dynamically
increase
the size of its lvols. HP can now do it (and has been able to for a
couple of years), but AIX has had this feature for a long time (and I
was
very envious of it until hp finally added it into its unix).
Wasn't LVM one of the OSF/1 technologies that IBM were developing? I
seem to recall that
the various members of the OSF/1 consortium (IBM, DEC, HP?, ???) were
each assigned a
technology section, but I can't recall who all the members were and
which bit each contributed.
I do recall that Digital ended up being the only member :-)
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
30 Mar
30 Mar
10:37 p.m.
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Jay West wrote:
I'm sorry, but I've worked extensively on many
differen't unices, and AIX is
truely evil. Guess if it's the only unix you deal with so you don't keep
having to switch mentality between AIX and everything else...
I'll second and third that. The linker, in particular, is a huge
pain-in-the-rear. It's almost axiomatic that if a bit of free software
builds and runs without modification on every other flavor of Unix/Linux,
it will require a week of hair-pulling to bring up on AIX.
Things _are_ improving, though. Since AIX 4.2.something, it's a bit less
painful to build shared libs and dynamically-loaded objects.
7560
days inactive
7571
days old
27 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
aw288＠osfn.org -
bbrown＠harpercollege.edu -
brendle＠ems.psu.edu -
brianmahoney＠look.ca -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
huw.davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
jwest＠kwcorp.com -
kelly＠fergason.com -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
shirsch＠adelphia.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
waltje＠pdp11.nl