|
I’m finding HP-UX 10.20… not so bad? I’m sure it helps that I have an 80MHz Gecko with 128MB and a big card in the SCSI2SD
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
I janitored 11.00B for a bit and it was pretty okay. I especially liked the fact that it has LVM
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
linux lvm is a straight up copy of hpux lvm. no shame in stealing from th best I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
eschaton posted:HP-UX eschaton posted:not so bad everything being rhel or centos on x86-64 is boring as hell, but it’s the good kind of boring
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:you must be using it very differently from $previous_job. the only happy memories I have relating to hp-ux are of the party we had when we decommissioned the last few proprietary servers. but I could well believe they were just using it wrong do bear in mind that eschaton has, in the past week, been playing with ultrix possibly the worst unix ever shipped to customers
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:do bear in mind that eschaton has, in the past week, been playing with ultrix Why was it so bad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
>From the command line, I always felt like Ultrix was just a BSD, same as SunOS and NEXTSTEP maybe that was just what CMU did to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
the thing i hated the most about hpux was that you had to mknod almost all the device files for LVM yourself, there was very little automation and lots of places you could screw it up and lose data One of my fondest memories from work was scrapping a whole row of unix racks around 10 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Why was it so bad? nbsd is just a huge mach fan and compares it to its replacement, the lovely osf/1
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
Digital Unix was so crappy science departments were using gcc for student theses in 1997 (from an Alpha machine used in the CS department of Melbourne University I "inherited").
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Why was it so bad? it was circa 1985 unix, never updated, because the new, fabulous replacement is just around the corner any day now the most glaring example is that it lacked shared libraries
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:nbsd is just a huge mach fan and compares it to its replacement, the lovely osf/1 osf/1 was also bad but very differently bad at least osf/1 is bad in ways that are cool and interesting. ultrix was just an unwanted stepchild left to moulder in a dark closet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:osf/1 was also bad but very differently bad DSYP?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Digital Unix was so crappy science departments were using gcc for student theses in 1997 (from an Alpha machine used in the CS department of Melbourne University I "inherited"). Eh? Why does using the GNU C Compiler make an OS crappy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I janitored 11.00B for a bit and it was pretty okay. I especially liked the fact that it has LVM Isnt HPUX the one where you get to pay an extra $1000+ a year just to be able to resize filesystems online? And the same if you want VMs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:DSYP? schads if you're gonna try to drop owns you gotta commit
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Eh? Why does using the GNU C Compiler make an OS crappy? unix has a system compiler so presumably the included compiler sucked. the bsds still in service used the last gpl2 version of gcc with custom patches before they switched to clang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
hifi posted:unix has a system compiler so presumably the included compiler sucked. the bsds still in service used the last gpl2 version of gcc with custom patches before they switched to clang. osf/1 never had a system compiler the dec compiler was a very expensive layered product
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Isnt HPUX the one where you get to pay an extra $1000+ a year just to be able to resize filesystems online? And the same if you want VMs. hpux used to have like ten different versions but they got rid of that because it was dumb
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Isnt HPUX the one where you get to pay an extra $1000+ a year just to be able to resize filesystems online? And the same if you want VMs. sounds kind of like windows
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
hifi posted:unix has a system compiler so presumably the included compiler sucked. the bsds still in service used the last gpl2 version of gcc with custom patches before they switched to clang. Notorious b.s.d. posted:osf/1 never had a system compiler Most Unixes were licensed binary-only without compilers (source licenses were VERY expensive), but usually there was a deal for educational institutions if they were buying a bunch of hardware. The Digital Unix I have is pre-4.0 (3.2C), and it includes DEC C: the C part calls itself Digital Unix Compiler Driver, but the CXX is a bit more forthcoming, DEC C++ V5.4-006. These are frontends to a horrifying collection of goo in /lib/cmplrs. Anyway, it was crap for teaching computer science and it was only there to tailor the kernel. GNU C didn't make it crap, it made it bearable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Most Unixes were licensed binary-only without compilers (source licenses were VERY expensive), but usually there was a deal for educational institutions if they were buying a bunch of hardware. The Digital Unix I have is pre-4.0 (3.2C), and it includes DEC C: the C part calls itself Digital Unix Compiler Driver, but the CXX is a bit more forthcoming, DEC C++ V5.4-006. These are frontends to a horrifying collection of goo in /lib/cmplrs. Anyway, it was crap for teaching computer science and it was only there to tailor the kernel. GNU C didn't make it crap, it made it bearable. i was never a tru64 guy but as far as i can recall, it had loadable modules. you didn't need a compiler to tailor the kernel. sunos worked that way, though -- it came with a crippled compiler toolchain that only existed to rebuild the kernel. if you wanted a compiler that actually loving worked, you had to pay for sunwspro
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
hifi posted:unix has a system compiler so presumably the included compiler sucked. the bsds still in service used the last gpl2 version of gcc with custom patches before they switched to clang. Quite often the system compiler if present was a vestigial remnant that could only do K&R (pre ANSI) C. Not much good for teaching in the 90s but enough to eg compile gcc. Nothing unusual there, it's why gcc became a thing really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:i was never a tru64 guy but as far as i can recall, it had loadable modules. you didn't need a compiler to tailor the kernel. The SunOS way was how Unix was done back then. Digital UNIX is a horrible no man's land between osf/1 and tru64. It had system v streams but was mostly dependent on bsdisms to work at all as a system. It really was a case of needing a unix to sell alpha boxes, a lesson DEC learnt a little too late. The alpha box this system was on was pressed into service as a CS dept network hub for the use of staff and honours students in the mid-90's and was really struggling by its decommissioning at the end of 2001. Sadly most of the interesting stuff was nfs-exported so some intriguing in-house software is probably lost to history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
digital never really had their heart into unix in the first place, or at least that is how all the people who worked at dec explained that to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
not like any unix vendor did better than dec really, so i think they were in the right not to worry too much there were other things to worry about though
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:not like any unix vendor did better than dec really, so i think they were in the right not to worry too much well they all pretty much did better than dec they made more money, they sold more boxes, and they shipped less-bad software edit: do note that dec ended up being bought for pennies by a peecee vendor Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:It had system v streams but was mostly dependent on bsdisms to work at all as a system. this is not an accident osf/1 was the product of a multivendor consortium formed to oppose at&t and sun, and their svr4 project. notable joiners were hp, intel, and dec. i can't remember any of the others. of course it's riddled with bsd-isms -- svr3 was owned by at&t, and svr4 was the hated at&t / sun joint project. the only way to get even partly un-encumbered software was bsd i didn't realize they licensed STREAMS though. lol @ how dumb a move that is in hindsight
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Origin posted:digital never really had their heart into unix in the first place, or at least that is how all the people who worked at dec explained that to me. It was a really odd mix of NIH vs in-house Unix evangelism. The story goes that Dennis and Ken were offered a Vax to port Unix to but they took one look at the instruction set and noped out. There was a bit of second-system effect going on there! But on the other hand you had Dave Cutler of VMS/NT fame who loved to carp against Unix and was ideologically opposed to anything but microkernel design. Notorious b.s.d. posted:i didn't realize they licensed STREAMS though. lol @ how dumb a move that is in hindsight What the history of that consortium teaches you is just how crazy it gets when standards meet market reality. One of the hopes of open source has always been that standards can evade this kind of conflict, I'm not sure it can continue to be successful. But STREAMS always sucked, that's a classic market distortion. ewe2 fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
notably SVR4 included sockets
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
STREAMS wasn’t that bad it was much better as a low level API than something for application level code to use though not like Berkeley sockets is that great either
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
ugh, SCSI2SD hung a third of the way into installing the ANSI C compiler for HP-UX 10.20 drat it, I just want to be able to to build mbedTLS and libcurl and dropbear, and to do CDE (and maybe VUE) development the whole “unbundled compilers” thing suuuuucked
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
lol snapshots.debian.org which is a repository for snapshots of Debian packages blocks an entire /9 of ec2 so much for my utopian dreams
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
There was even a STREAMS port for Linux for a while. Iirc it's not that the design was necessarily a bad idea, it let you do some cool modular layering type stuff that NT also allows, but that flexibility meant performance was sucktastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
I’ve heard rumblings that NetBSD is looking to revise their default X environment to not just be the default X environment wonder how they’ll take a suggestion to take Motif and CDE from pkgsrc into the base image
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
also I built mxterm after getting Motif running on my HP 9000/433s and it doesn’t know how to request a pty 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
eschaton posted:I’ve heard rumblings that NetBSD is looking to revise their default X environment to not just be the default X environment this is exactly what it would take for me to think about installing netbsd
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
and nBSD would feel right at home
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
cde was basically fine
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
plasma 5.15 gettin lots of good stuff https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma-5.14.90.php wireguard integration, battery on bluetooth devices and wayland stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 16:07
|
|
