A3000UX applications

[Keith Holder]

In <889 at cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor at cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes:

>And EXACTLY which System V.4 ABI CERTIFIED operating systems are you
>running, and on which platforms?  Since I have been unable to get information
>on ANY OTHER such systems available commercially in the U.S. (and I have been
>to more trade shows, and in more reps offices than I care to count), I
>wonder where you got them, and when they were CERTIFIED.

      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.
	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.
	Plus, I am not aware of an ABI certification procedure that is in place
for any VR4 release on any processor architecture.

>>employers who just so happen to produce a version of V.4 for the Motorola 68k.

>And YOURS is CERTIFIED ABI?  Your companies products are consistantly
>incompatible, even within an AT&T release version.  Thank (fill in blank)

	I don't remember saying that our product was certified as ABI compliant,
however, I do remember saying that the Amiga UNIX , IMHO, was not ABI compliant.
I could also prove it by indicating which header files on the Amiga system that
we have are incompatible with the ABI specification.
	I also know that we have followed the  68k ABI as much as humanly 
possible, even when the goal-posts have been moved. 

>that C= had more sense than to use YOU.  More often than not, I've cursed
>Unisoft for putting out what I consider ABSOLUTE JUNK releases of V.3.

    Oh yeah, have you certified evidence that they were junk? And by the way
since we are getting personal here, I have never considered NCR's release of
UNIX that wonderful either.


>It is possible that C= slipped up, and that the Amiga distribution of UNIX
>is not ABI compliant, or that 2.0 will be cleaned up as a planned product.

	Really? No shit, Sherlock!

>However, unless you can document your statement, SHUT the #$#^%$# UP!

	Why should I? I was only offering my humble opinion to a question on 
whether Amiga Unix was ABI compatible. All you have done is air your grievances 
about past UniSoft products. Just because you have an axe to grind with UniSoft,
( did they turn down a job application? ) you seem to think that their employees
have no right to express an opinion on the net. 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.
<khh at root.co.uk>	G1ITH	Fax:	(071) 729 3273
Phone:	+44 71 729 3773