A3000UX applications

[Dan Taylor]

First, an apology to Keith, and the net:

I shouldn't have reacted so strongly to Keith's original posting. I
apologize.

In <2675 at root44.co.uk> khh at root.co.uk (Keith Holder) writes:

>      UniSoft not only wrote the AT&T System VR4 68k/88k product, they also 
>developed the gABI test suite for AT&T, so maybe we have much more of an idea 
>of what is ABI compliant and what is not.

What AT&T System VR4 68k product?

>	Also you don't need to be a genius to compare the header files on the
>Amiga box and what is specified in the Motorola 68k ABI and  spot 
>inconsistencies in data structures.

Your original posting said "core dumps".  If you run a non-compliant program
from platform "A" on platform "B", and they don't use the same load addresses,
trap vector to the system, or system call interface, it will probably core
dump.  So, unless you run a compliant program, and it core dumps, you have
no complaint.  You didn't say you did that.  You COULD have even posted
that it dumped because it "used the wrong vector", or whatever.

The ABI was purposely kept loose, to permit non-compliant software to
continue to run on its original platform, on as many platforms as possible.
So "running programs from different systems" is meaningless, unless each
of those programs is known to be compliant.

>I could also prove it by indicating which header files on the Amiga system that
>we have are incompatible with the ABI specification.

Then why didn't you?

>	Why should I? I was only offering my humble opinion to a question on 
>whether Amiga Unix was ABI compatible.

No, you offered an "authoritative statement", no qualifiers, no documentation.
That is not constructive, for anyone, but sounds like "advertising", especially
when you talk about Unisoft "providing a System V".  I HATE advertising on
the net.  However, I was too strong.

>( did they turn down a job application? )

It would never have entered my mind to apply.  I have worked in UNIX (kernel
and apps) for a decade, at least.  But I've not worked in Europe in that
capacity.  If Unisoft has/had a Left Coast, USofA, office, I've not
bothered to look for it.

>So, until you can provide 
>documentary evidence that Amiga Unix is ABI compatible maybe you should shut 
>the f**k up! B-).

>Keith Holder, Systems Software Consultant, UniSoft Ltd.

I provided as much evidence that it was as you did against, in your original
posting.  You made an unsupported, at the time, statement that C='s UNIX
was not ABI-compliant.  Had you provided ANY documentation, then I would
not have complained.  One of the purposes of these groups is education.  If
you're going to complain about something, document the complaint.  If a
header is bad, list the offense.  If a binary crashes, get out your favorite
debugger, and say where.  My real complaint with your posting was that you
just "flamed" C=.  That's why I "demanded" some backup documentation, or
silence.

Also, it may be that you have out-of-date code.  Have you reported the
problem to C=?  If they have already fixed this, then there IS no problem.

I would have to get back to several-year-old history files to find my
exact complaints against Unisoft ports.  I should not have brought up
my prior dissatisfactions without documentation, any more than you should
have posted without it.  It may be that since I last used one, new, or
more experienced people, are doing the job, and those problems no longer
exist.

I had nothing to do with NCR's UNIX in the past, and am a consultant here.
That's why the disclaimer exists.

Dan Taylor
* My opinions, not NCR's. *