Thread View: comp.sys.concurrent
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Steve Jenkins
Thu, 14 Jun 1990 05:32
Experiences with RTU 5.0
Author: Steve Jenkins
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 1990 05:32
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 1990 05:32
12 lines
844 bytes
844 bytes
Before scheduling our 5.0 upgrade, we would be very interested in hearing any experiences with it, good, bad, or indifferent. Thanks. -- Steve Jenkins N6UNI jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 354-0162 Articles to: concurrent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu or uunet!soma.bcm.tmc.edu!concurrent Administrative stuff: concurrent-request@soma.bcm.tmc.edu Stan Barber, Moderator
Re: Experiences with RTU 5.0
Author: Bob Sutterfield
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 04:15
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 04:15
23 lines
1951 bytes
1951 bytes
In article <1127@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes: There aren't any particularly obvious advantages to the upgrade either, aside from lots of small bugfixes. The new Ethernet software (which we haven't received yet) looks much nicer, since it includes support for the Internet name resolver... This was where we saw our biggest benefit. We run a Class B network number with Class C subnetting (137.175.s.h with netmask ffffff00). Under RTU 4.x we had to run a proxy ARP daemon on a nearby Sun to keep the RTU machines' ARP caches fooled into using the correct gateway (one of the RTU machines, in fact) to our IP-over-X.25 network. Now with proper subnet support it all just works. Yes, availability of the DNS stuff is nice, and we use it and depend on it. But for basic functionality, you can't beat a working netmask. Oh yeah, the C compiler seems a little better, too. It chokes less often on code that runs on everything else. I find myself needing to use the GNU C compiler less often. Articles to: concurrent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu or uunet!soma.bcm.tmc.edu!concurrent Administrative stuff: concurrent-request@soma.bcm.tmc.edu Stan Barber, Moderator
Re: Experiences with RTU 5.0
Author: aai!aai.com!leo
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 04:17
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 04:17
32 lines
2148 bytes
2148 bytes
stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes: >In article <1068@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> jenkins@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Steve Jenkins) writes: > Before scheduling our 5.0 upgrade, we would be very interested in > hearing any experiences with it, good, bad, or indifferent. >Clearly, the problems we encountered in the upgrade were trivial. >There aren't any particularly obvious advantages to the upgrade >either, aside from lots of small bugfixes. The new Ethernet >software (which we haven't received yet) looks much nicer, since >it includes support for the Internet name resolver and even the >nameserver daemon (which most people won't need to run), so if >have a nearby nameserver you won't have to keep host tables any >more. We found a BIG difference with X11 when we upgraded... It worked! Previously, we had all sorts of problems with "file table overflow" and not being able to rlogin. Under 5.0, X is actually usable! Now, if they would just finish the X11R4 port... Anybody know how to get the application keypad to produce escape codes instead of numbers when running xterm? Concurrent wasn't any help - they said to wait for the xcterm that comes with Motif! -- Leo leo@aai.com leo%aai@uunet.uu.net ...uunet!aai!leo -- Leo leo@aai.com leo%aai@uunet.uu.net ...uunet!aai!leo Articles to: concurrent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu or uunet!soma.bcm.tmc.edu!concurrent Administrative stuff: concurrent-request@soma.bcm.tmc.edu Stan Barber, Moderator
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads