Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Path: sparky!uunet!kailand!pwolfe
From: pwo...@kai.com (Patrick Wolfe)
Subject: Why switch from Dynix/3 to Dynix/ptx?
Message-ID: <1993Jan28.153923.12876@kai.com>
Summary: looking for clues
Keywords: sequent, dynix
Organization: Kuck and Associates, Champaign IL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:39:23 GMT
Lines: 31
I'm looking for reasons other sites used to justify the huge amount of work to
convert their Sequent system from bsd based Dynix 3 operating system to the
svr3 based Dynix/ptx operating system. Bsd bigots, please, don't waste
anyone's time with bsd vs. system v religious comments.
We currently have both OS's on our S27, because we support our products on
both, but we continue to run Dynix 3 as our production operating system. The
system is used for documentation (tex, ditroff), software development, and as
our general administrative system (email, news, etc). We have no third party
purchased applications to worry about.
None of the users have expressed any preference, or objection, to either OS.
The only reasons I see are related to ongoing support, future enhancements, and
operating system features. Sequent has said they won't be enhancing dynix 3
anymore, so switching to ptx now, may mean quicker access to new features in
the future.
There are two features of ptx I'd really like to have, namely the nfs lock
daemon and bidirectional modems. There is also one big feature of dynix 3,
NIS, that sequent says they won't support in ptx. The (lack of) features
discussion doesn't seem concern anyone here but me. The enormous amount of
work converting the over 400 locally installed programs vs the benefit gained
by the new features is the reason I haven't switched already.
Can you think of any reason or major feature that might make me reconsider
switching (or not) to ptx?
Thanks for your input.
--
Patrick Wolfe (pwo...@kai.com)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!progress!bedford.progress.COM!tucker
From: tuc...@bedford.progress.COM (Kyle Tucker)
Subject: Re: Why switch from Dynix/3 to Dynix/ptx?
Message-ID: <1993Jan29.143039.2475@progress.com>
Keywords: sequent, dynix
Sender: tucker@bahrain (Kyle Tucker)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bahrain
Reply-To: tuc...@bedford.progress.COM
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
References: <1993Jan28.153923.12876@kai.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 14:30:39 GMT
Lines: 13
I don't care if a system is BSD or SysV, as long as it's only one! I have
never had as much grief as I do with Dynix3 with scripts,sendmail.cfs and
whatever else, as I have with the dual-univfarse setup; e.g. Sorry, ls -l
only shows link if called from ucb, but ls is in /usr/bin/ls if you call
it from bsd unless the script is a cron job from att ...............
We have one Dynix3 system remaining and it can't be upgraded soon enough.
- Kyle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kyle Tucker - Email Administrator | Progress Software Corporation
tuc...@bedford.progress.com | 14 Oak Park
(617)280-4565 | Bedford, Mass. 01730
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!news.claremont.edu!jarthur!jason
From: ja...@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jason Merrill)
Subject: Re: Why switch from Dynix/3 to Dynix/ptx?
In-Reply-To: tucker@bedford.progress.COM's message of Fri, 29 Jan 1993 14:30:39 GMT
Message-ID: <JASON.93Feb6235057@it.claremont.edu>
Sender: n...@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System)
Organization: Minimal
References: <1993Jan28.153923.12876@kai.com> <1993Jan29.143039.2475@progress.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 6 Feb 93 23:50:57
Lines: 9
>>>>> tuc...@bedford.progress.COM (Kyle Tucker) writes:
> I don't care if a system is BSD or SysV, as long as it's only one!
Our Dynix3 system is, effectively, only one; NOTHING uses the att universe.
Most users aren't aware of it. This really isn't a problem for us . . .
--
Jason Merrill ja...@jarthur.claremont.edu
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!gatech!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!oasys!curt
From: c...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: Why switch from Dynix/3 to Dynix/ptx?
Message-ID: <30831@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Date: 8 Feb 93 16:09:37 GMT
References: <1993Jan28.153923.12876@kai.com> <JASON.93Feb6235057@it.claremont.edu>
Reply-To: c...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 13
> tuc...@bedford.progress.COM (Kyle Tucker) writes:
> I don't care if a system is BSD or SysV, as long as it's only one!
In comp.sys.sequent, ja...@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jason Merrill) writes:
>Our Dynix3 system is, effectively, only one; NOTHING uses the att universe.
>Most users aren't aware of it. This really isn't a problem for us . . .
Same here, we just ignore the att stuff and have no problems.
Switching to ptx, however, will be a problem. We will probably switch
hardware vendors long before switching to ptx.
Curt
|