Wollogong TCP/IP stack - VMS

This is a discussion on Wollogong TCP/IP stack - VMS ; I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine, they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack. I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct? Adding to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

  1. Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.

    I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?

    Adding to the "fun" is that they may have written some programs to that stack, so those
    need to be migrated...

    --Stan Quayle
    Quayle Consulting Inc.

    ----------
    Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX
    8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH 43147 USA
    stan-at-stanq-dot-com http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html
    "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"



  2. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, infovax@stanq.com
    says...
    > I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    > they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >
    > I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?


    No. When the owners of Wollongong got out of the business, they made a
    deal with Process Software that you could get a license for either
    TCPware or Multinet (your choice) by buying one year of support for
    the chosen software, I.e. a free license transfer. But the stack was
    completely different from either Process product.

    >
    > Adding to the "fun" is that they may have written some programs to that stack, so those
    > need to be migrated...
    >


    I don't remember if Wollongong ever supported UCX emulation (UCX
    compatible BG: device driver.) I think at one time NETLIB supported
    it, so you could write stack-independent code that way. You might
    need a very old version of NETLIB, though.


    > --Stan Quayle
    > Quayle Consulting Inc.



    --
    John

  3. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
    > I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    > they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >
    > I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?


    Nope. It went to Attachmate, and it was dopped there, AFAIK.

    > Adding to the "fun" is that they may have written some programs to that stack, so those
    > need to be migrated...


    cu,
    Martin
    --
    One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules!
    One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de
    One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/
    And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de

  4. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    In article , John Santos writes:
    > In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, infovax@stanq.com
    > says...
    >> I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    >> they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >>
    >> I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?

    >
    > No. When the owners of Wollongong got out of the business, they made a
    > deal with Process Software that you could get a license for either
    > TCPware or Multinet (your choice) by buying one year of support for
    > the chosen software, I.e. a free license transfer. But the stack was
    > completely different from either Process product.
    >
    >>
    >> Adding to the "fun" is that they may have written some programs to that stack, so those
    >> need to be migrated...
    >>

    >
    > I don't remember if Wollongong ever supported UCX emulation (UCX
    > compatible BG: device driver.) I think at one time NETLIB supported
    > it, so you could write stack-independent code that way. You might
    > need a very old version of NETLIB, though.


    I never used Wollongong Pathway, but I believe it did support UCX
    emulation (the Mosaic build procedure supports building against its
    UCX emulation library). If the release they have supports it, the
    emulation object library is TWG$ETC:[000000]UW$IPC.OLB.


    George Cook
    WVNET

  5. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, "Stanley F. Quayle" writes:
    >I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    >they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >
    >I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?


    I would opin that that is INCORRECT. BTW, it's Wollongong. Wollongong,
    IIRC, became Attachmate.



    When I worked for the DREN ET&D Labs, we had Wollongong for TCP/IP. We
    called it AllIsWrong, and for good reason. Machines would crash within
    components of Wollongong with great frequency. One day I happened upon
    an ad for a product called TGV MultiNet. I think, IIRC, that they of-
    fered an enticement offer of free license and a year and half of support
    for the price of a year's support if you had an existing TCP/IP product
    installed.

    I obtained a copy and installed it on one of the machines. Configured it
    and we beat on it and beat on it hard. No crashes. The labs purchased a
    number of copies of MultiNet and Wollongong was Wollongone.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  6. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    What version of Wollongong are they running?

    I seem to recall using version 3.x and upgrading to 5.0 around the late
    1980s. I don't recall when they transitioned to Attachmate, but I have a
    copy of the Attachmate PathWay 3.1 documentation and CD. It supports UCX
    emulation, and still appears to use the TWG$* logicals and directories.

    I'd be afraid to run a newer version of DCPS on an old version UCX emulation
    IP stack, but then again, I've done stranger things!

    What version of VMS are they running?

    Bob

    wrote in message
    news:47c34d44$0$8063$607ed4bc@cv.net...
    > In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, "Stanley F. Quayle"
    > writes:
    >>I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it
    >>works just fine,
    >>they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >>
    >>I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?

    >
    > I would opin that that is INCORRECT. BTW, it's Wollongong. Wollongong,
    > IIRC, became Attachmate.
    >
    >
    >
    > When I worked for the DREN ET&D Labs, we had Wollongong for TCP/IP. We
    > called it AllIsWrong, and for good reason. Machines would crash within
    > components of Wollongong with great frequency. One day I happened upon
    > an ad for a product called TGV MultiNet. I think, IIRC, that they of-
    > fered an enticement offer of free license and a year and half of support
    > for the price of a year's support if you had an existing TCP/IP product
    > installed.
    >
    > I obtained a copy and installed it on one of the machines. Configured it
    > and we beat on it and beat on it hard. No crashes. The labs purchased a
    > number of copies of MultiNet and Wollongong was Wollongone.
    >
    > --
    > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker
    > VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
    >
    > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    >
    > http://tmesis.com/drat.html



  7. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    In article , "Bob Blum" writes:
    >What version of Wollongong are they running?
    >
    >I seem to recall using version 3.x and upgrading to 5.0 around the late
    >1980s. I don't recall when they transitioned to Attachmate, but I have a
    >copy of the Attachmate PathWay 3.1 documentation and CD. It supports UCX
    >emulation, and still appears to use the TWG$* logicals and directories.
    >
    >I'd be afraid to run a newer version of DCPS on an old version UCX emulation
    >IP stack, but then again, I've done stranger things!
    >
    >What version of VMS are they running?


    What versions are they running? None.

    What versions were they running, I don't recall. This was almost 20 years
    ago. All I know is that I was happy to dump it and install Multinet.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  8. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    In article <47c34d44$0$8063$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, "Stanley F. Quayle" writes:
    >>I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it works just fine,
    >>they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that stack.
    >>
    >>I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?

    >
    > I would opin that that is INCORRECT. BTW, it's Wollongong. Wollongong,
    > IIRC, became Attachmate.
    >


    Speaking of Wollongong, I still have two tapes of Eunice for the VAX
    (onre says bin the other says src. I wonder how much source is actually
    there?) hanging in my tape locker. Anybody know what the status of Eunice
    might be? Anybody around who might know? Eunices biggest shortcoming
    was its speed (actually, its lack thereof!) and if it could be re-done
    today it might not perform all that bad on an Alpha or even an Itanium
    under VMS. Which then brings up the question, "Just how much of a real
    Unix environment would it provide?" So many questions, so few answers!!

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  9. Re: Wollogong TCP/IP stack

    On 25 Feb 2008 at 19:04, Bob Blum wrote:
    > What version of Wollongong are they running?

    How can they tell? (I have no access, it being a classified system.)

    > I have a copy of the Attachmate PathWay 3.1 documentation and CD. It
    > supports UCX emulation, and still appears to use the TWG$* logicals and
    > directories.

    I'd be interested in getting a copy of what you have. Please call me at 888-VAX-VMS-8 to
    discuss.

    > What version of VMS are they running?

    V5.5-2H4 (and, yes, they're stuck on that version)

    --Stan Quayle
    Quayle Consulting Inc.

    ----------
    Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX
    8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH 43147 USA
    stan-at-stanq-dot-com http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html
    "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"



  10. Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    On 26 Feb 2008 at 13:59, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > Just how much of a real Unix environment would it provide?


    I remember building some open-source stuff about 15 years ago on a Unix machine. The
    config script came up with the message, "Thank God you're not running Eunice".

    Why Eunice instead of GNV? Yes, GNV doesn't exist for VAX, but it's already on Alpha and
    Itanium. And always looking for more developers to join the party, if you have some
    spare time.

    --Stan Quayle
    Quayle Consulting Inc.

    ----------
    Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX
    8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH 43147 USA
    stan-at-stanq-dot-com http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html
    "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"



  11. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    In article <47C3DAB7.26446.4B20EAF@infovax.stanq.com>,
    "Stanley F. Quayle" writes:
    > On 26 Feb 2008 at 13:59, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> Just how much of a real Unix environment would it provide?

    >
    > I remember building some open-source stuff about 15 years ago on a Unix machine. The
    > config script came up with the message, "Thank God you're not running Eunice".
    >
    > Why Eunice instead of GNV? Yes, GNV doesn't exist for VAX, but it's already on Alpha and
    > Itanium. And always looking for more developers to join the party, if you have some
    > spare time.


    I used Eunice on a VAX 20-some years ago. Considering that the VAX
    was often used to compile Ada making VMS slow as well, Eunice was
    indistinguishable from real Unix of the time. I have not even looked
    at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it ever being a case
    of not knowing it wasn't Unix.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  12. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    > ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.


    Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.

    There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    function would go a long way, too.

    --Stan Quayle
    Quayle Consulting Inc.

    ----------
    Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX
    8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH 43147 USA
    stan-at-stanq-dot-com http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html
    "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"



  13. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
    > On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >
    >>I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    >>ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.

    >
    >
    > Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    > users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.
    >
    > There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    > GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    > function would go a long way, too.
    >


    If you WANT Unix, why not just USE Unix?????



  14. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    In article <47C415B1.31098.5986F9D@infovax.stanq.com>,
    "Stanley F. Quayle" writes:
    > On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    >> ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.

    >
    > Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    > users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.
    >
    > There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    > GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    > function would go a long way, too.
    >


    Does anyine remember if Eunice had fork()?

    And, once again as the original question seems to have gotten lost
    in the noise.... Does anyone know who is likely to be the holder
    of The Wollongong Group's IP? Is it at all likely that they could
    be asked to release Eunice to the OS world?

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  15. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    In article <47C460BF.2010302@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
    >> On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    >>>ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.

    >>
    >>
    >> Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    >> users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.
    >>
    >> There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    >> GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    >> function would go a long way, too.
    >>

    >
    > If you WANT Unix, why not just USE Unix?????


    I do. I have plenty of Unix systems to work with. But, finding a way
    to run Unix software on VMS is a subject that comes up here frequently.
    Eunice went away primarily because the performance was abysmal. This
    was true of lots of things that have now become common because the tech-
    nology has caught upt and surpassed the problem. (ie. P-machines offered
    good performance but far enough behind native that they were abandoned.
    Today we have the Java Virtual Machine which is, in effect, just a
    P-machine.) If Eunice offers a way to port Unix software to VMS with
    acceptable performance, why not give it a second look and even update
    it to take advantage of all the stuff we have learned in the meantime.
    Hmmmm...... Unix with true clustering? :-)

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  16. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <47C460BF.2010302@comcast.net>,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    >>Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    >>>>ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    >>>users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.
    >>>
    >>>There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    >>>GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    >>>function would go a long way, too.
    >>>

    >>
    >>If you WANT Unix, why not just USE Unix?????

    >
    >
    > I do. I have plenty of Unix systems to work with. But, finding a way
    > to run Unix software on VMS is a subject that comes up here frequently.
    > Eunice went away primarily because the performance was abysmal. This
    > was true of lots of things that have now become common because the tech-
    > nology has caught upt and surpassed the problem. (ie. P-machines offered
    > good performance but far enough behind native that they were abandoned.
    > Today we have the Java Virtual Machine which is, in effect, just a
    > P-machine.) If Eunice offers a way to port Unix software to VMS with
    > acceptable performance, why not give it a second look and even update
    > it to take advantage of all the stuff we have learned in the meantime.
    > Hmmmm...... Unix with true clustering? :-)
    >
    > bill
    >
    >


    A lot of Unix software will run on VMS without too much trouble. "Hello
    World" will build and run on just about anything! Some depends on
    Unixisms like "fork" and "exec" and those can be a little more troublesome.

    A lot of other Unix software was written in "K&R" C and needs a bit of
    work before it will even compile without error.

    Do you have something in particular that you want to run on VMS? Are
    you prepared to pay to have it beaten into submission?


  17. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    On 26 Feb 2008 at 13:55, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > If you WANT Unix, why not just USE Unix?????


    It's not a question of wanting Unix -- it's a question of all those useful open-source
    pieces (Firefox, Apache, Samba, etc.) being able to compile natively on VMS. We need
    these things on VMS to be "relevant" [ie, saleable] in today's world.

    As for the system I set up using GNV, it was a way to get the Unix guys on VMS quickly.
    And there be no need for a learning curve if vi/emacs and some other tools were
    available. We purists, of course, would use the more-powerful DCL environment...

    fork -- there are like 16 requirements for fork to work like it does in *nix. Right now,
    VMS can do something like 5 of them. No problem, if you only need those 5. But most
    *nix programmers don't restrict themselves to VMS's 5, even if they could. Why would
    they?

    HP's not supporting the port of OpenOffice to VMS [darn!], but there's an "issuelist" of
    things that need to be in VMS to make it work. Check out http://www.oooovms.dyndns.org/
    for the details...

    --Stan Quayle
    Quayle Consulting Inc.

    ----------
    Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ Toll free: 1-888-I-LUV-VAX
    8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH 43147 USA
    stan-at-stanq-dot-com http://www.stanq.com/charon-vax.html
    "OpenVMS, when downtime is not an option"



  18. Re: Eunice (was: Wollogong TCP/IP stack)

    In article <47C46FE5.6040407@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article <47C460BF.2010302@comcast.net>,
    >> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >>
    >>>Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 26 Feb 2008 at 16:05, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I have not even looked at GNV for quite some time, but I don't remember it
    >>>>>ever being a case of not knowing it wasn't Unix.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Back in 2003, I used GNV for user accounts to provide a "friendly" environment for *nix
    >>>>users. If you prevent them from escaping to the VMS command line, it works pretty well.
    >>>>
    >>>>There are more and more things being ported from the open-source world to VMS by using
    >>>>GNV. I just wish that we could the newest bash shell working there. A true "fork"
    >>>>function would go a long way, too.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>If you WANT Unix, why not just USE Unix?????

    >>
    >>
    >> I do. I have plenty of Unix systems to work with. But, finding a way
    >> to run Unix software on VMS is a subject that comes up here frequently.
    >> Eunice went away primarily because the performance was abysmal. This
    >> was true of lots of things that have now become common because the tech-
    >> nology has caught upt and surpassed the problem. (ie. P-machines offered
    >> good performance but far enough behind native that they were abandoned.
    >> Today we have the Java Virtual Machine which is, in effect, just a
    >> P-machine.) If Eunice offers a way to port Unix software to VMS with
    >> acceptable performance, why not give it a second look and even update
    >> it to take advantage of all the stuff we have learned in the meantime.
    >> Hmmmm...... Unix with true clustering? :-)
    >>
    >> bill
    >>
    >>

    >
    > A lot of Unix software will run on VMS without too much trouble. "Hello
    > World" will build and run on just about anything! Some depends on
    > Unixisms like "fork" and "exec" and those can be a little more troublesome.
    >
    > A lot of other Unix software was written in "K&R" C and needs a bit of
    > work before it will even compile without error.
    >
    > Do you have something in particular that you want to run on VMS? Are
    > you prepared to pay to have it beaten into submission?


    It wasn't me. Others here are always clamouring for things like
    OpenOffice and other desktop type tools that Unix and VMS doesn't.
    The talk about Wolongong merely made me think of Eunice and I wondered
    what the chances were that it might make running some of these
    programs more possible, As I stated originally, there were a lot
    of projects that were abandoned and in many cases completely lost
    that probably have more utility today than they did when they were
    actively being developed. Just one example to consider. There
    used to be a project called The Software Tools Virtual Operating
    System. It wasn't an OS at all, it was a good job of creating a
    standard API (unix like) that ran on over 50 differnt systems,
    including VMS. Work on this stopped back in the mid to later 80's.
    Just think if it had been continued. We might never have had any
    of these discussions because we would now have a common, standard
    API that people were writting all these programs to. My interests
    are merely academic as with the exception of running hobbyist systems
    I expect my VMS days are all but over.

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  19. Re: Eunice


    "Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    news:62ikaaF23nhf1U2@mid.individual.net...
    > In article <47c34d44$0$8063$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > > In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, "Stanley F. Quayle"

    writes:
    > >>I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it

    works just fine,
    > >>they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that

    stack.
    > >>
    > >>I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?

    > >
    > > I would opin that that is INCORRECT. BTW, it's Wollongong. Wollongong,
    > > IIRC, became Attachmate.
    > >

    >
    > Speaking of Wollongong, I still have two tapes of Eunice for the VAX
    > (onre says bin the other says src. I wonder how much source is actually
    > there?) hanging in my tape locker. Anybody know what the status of Eunice
    > might be? Anybody around who might know? Eunices biggest shortcoming
    > was its speed (actually, its lack thereof!) and if it could be re-done
    > today it might not perform all that bad on an Alpha or even an Itanium
    > under VMS. Which then brings up the question, "Just how much of a real
    > Unix environment would it provide?" So many questions, so few answers!!
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    Set the wayback machine to 1985. A VAX 11/725 (power of a 730 in a smaller
    box, with 2 * 26MB disks, maybe 4MB memory?) with VMS V3.7 then V4,
    supporting three users. An IBM PC/XT with Venix (Unix V7-alike), again
    supporting three users. A nominally fast but somewhat unstable Convergent
    Technologies Unix/68K box (System V) with the same three users. And, on the
    730, as well as VMS, Eunice (a BSD 4.1 derivative at that time). The office
    had three software developers working on a multiplatform project (hence the
    mixture). And what was the general favourite programming environment? VMS,
    because it was most productive. What was the least favourite? Eunice,
    because there were no circumstances in that setup where anything it offered
    was preferable to any other setup. Why anybody would be interested in Eunice
    today other than for historical reasons would be a mystery to me, but...

    regards
    John



  20. Re: Eunice

    In article <13s94363o93qtb6@corp.supernews.com>,
    "John Wallace" writes:
    >
    > "Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
    > news:62ikaaF23nhf1U2@mid.individual.net...
    >> In article <47c34d44$0$8063$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
    >> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >> > In article <47C2C324.7124.6DF980@infovax.stanq.com>, "Stanley F. Quayle"

    > writes:
    >> >>I have a client running the very-ancient Wollogong IP stack. While it

    > works just fine,
    >> >>they'd like to add DCPS for printing, but DCPS doesn't support that

    > stack.
    >> >>
    >> >>I vaguely remember that Wollogong became TCPware. Is that correct?
    >> >
    >> > I would opin that that is INCORRECT. BTW, it's Wollongong. Wollongong,
    >> > IIRC, became Attachmate.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Speaking of Wollongong, I still have two tapes of Eunice for the VAX
    >> (onre says bin the other says src. I wonder how much source is actually
    >> there?) hanging in my tape locker. Anybody know what the status of Eunice
    >> might be? Anybody around who might know? Eunices biggest shortcoming
    >> was its speed (actually, its lack thereof!) and if it could be re-done
    >> today it might not perform all that bad on an Alpha or even an Itanium
    >> under VMS. Which then brings up the question, "Just how much of a real
    >> Unix environment would it provide?" So many questions, so few answers!!
    >>
    >> bill
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >> billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >> University of Scranton |
    >> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

    >
    > Set the wayback machine to 1985. A VAX 11/725 (power of a 730 in a smaller
    > box, with 2 * 26MB disks, maybe 4MB memory?) with VMS V3.7 then V4,
    > supporting three users. An IBM PC/XT with Venix (Unix V7-alike), again
    > supporting three users. A nominally fast but somewhat unstable Convergent
    > Technologies Unix/68K box (System V) with the same three users. And, on the
    > 730, as well as VMS, Eunice (a BSD 4.1 derivative at that time). The office
    > had three software developers working on a multiplatform project (hence the
    > mixture). And what was the general favourite programming environment? VMS,
    > because it was most productive. What was the least favourite? Eunice,
    > because there were no circumstances in that setup where anything it offered
    > was preferable to any other setup. Why anybody would be interested in Eunice
    > today other than for historical reasons would be a mystery to me, but...


    But what was the reason? I would bet the primary reason was how slow it
    was. I worked with Eunice on an 11/780. You typed "ls^M" and then went
    for a cup of coffee. But technology has eliminated that problem. The
    big question, and the one I don't remember enough about to know the answer
    to, is; "Just how truly Unix compatable was Eunice and could it be updated
    to provide the missing pieces today?" If it truly emulated a Unix Kernel
    running on top of VMS (damn, doesn't that sound like virtualization?) and
    as such provided things like a true fork() and exec() it might be a solution
    who's time has finally arrived. As I have stated here and in other threads
    and even in other places, there was much done in the past that were really
    good ideas but the technology just wasn't ready for them at the time the
    forward thinking people came up with the idea. Many of these have, in
    fact, reappeared to day, like the P-machine/JavaVM. If the owner of Eunice
    is contactable and if they are agreeable to releasing the source from it's
    current copyright status, maybe, just maybe, it is worth at least taking
    a look at. For those who still shy away from the stigma of the name Eunice
    we could always call the new project "Virtual Unix for VMS". :-)

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast