Re: Eunice/Unity

Article View: net.eunice

Article #97

#97

From: Keith Bostic
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1984 21:25

22 lines
1615 bytes

I would like to see some responses to this inquiry posted to the net.  I have
worked somewhat extensively on EUNICE; the only other VMS/UNIX fake shell
I've seen was one developed by some students while I was in school.

As far as EUNICE goes, it's fine for all of the standard stuff -- if you want
to run under VMS and just devlop under UNIX, EUNICE gives you the shells,
job control, etc. etc.  On the down side, if you want to do *anything* 
interesting in UNIX (either shell or C/stdio), EUNICE is extremely buggy.
For example, SIGPIPE is missing; programs are never informed of a broken
pipe situation.  Sections 2 and 3 of the manual are supported, but only
casually.  

I haven't seen much discussion in this newsgroup (don't know if y'all 
exhausted the possibilities months ago or what) how about a lively 
commentary on the virtues of EUNICE vs. PHOENIX vs. UNITY?  Are there
others out there?  And is Wollongong *really* doing S5?

		Keith 
			ARPA: keith@seismo 
			UUCP: seismo!keith

*UNIX is trademarked, blah, blah, blah, by whoever it is.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1979@seismo.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!keith

References: <1706@tekig1.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/1/84; site seismo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!keith
From: keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: net.eunice,net.wanted
Subject: Re: Eunice/Unity
Message-ID: <1979@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jul-84 17:25:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: seismo.1979
Posted: Fri Jul 13 17:25:08 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jul-84 14:06:50 EDT
References: <1706@tekig1.UUCP>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 23

Reply to Parent Message