From: peter (Peter da Silva)
Date: 21:34 on 25 Apr 2005
Subject: HPUX tcp/ip utilities
% route add net 192.168.127.0 192.168.81.1
add net 192.168.127.0: gateway 192.168.81.1: Network is unreachable
% ifconfig lan5
lan5: flags=843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>
inet 192.168.81.12 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.81.255
% ping 192.168.81.1
ping 192.168.81.1
PING 192.168.81.1: 64 byte packets
64 bytes from 192.168.81.1: icmp_seq=0. time=0. ms
...
% # netstat -rn
Routing tables
Destination Gateway Flags Refs Interface Pmtu
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 lo0 4136
...
192.168.126.0 192.168.81.1 UG 0 lan5 0
% route add net 192.168.127.0 192.168.81.1
add net 192.168.127.0: gateway 192.168.81.1: Network is unreachable
% ...
To make a long story short, HPUX "route" command things this is still 1987
and goes
"Hmmm, no metric, let's pull 0 out of my ass"
"Hmmm, what's the gateway? How many hops away is that?"
"Hey, he said metric 0, and that's one hop!"
"This mother needs a confusing error message, telling me that 1 hop gateway
is 0 hops away like that"
I just LOVE dealing with a computer that's using early-80's versions of
network utilities. Makes me nostalgic for Xenix 286 it does. NOT.
Hey, HP, it's 2005, you haven't updated this software in 20 years, isn't it
about effing time you did? Wouldn't it have been a REALLY GOOD IDEA to take
advantage of the fact that Tru64 is based on 4.3-Reno (AKA 4.4 beta) instead
of 4.2 or 4.1D or whatever prehistoric discarded backup tape you used to spawn
HPUX from, and use it instead of this ... AUGH
HATE
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 22:19 on 25 Apr 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:34:30PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote: > I just LOVE dealing with a computer that's using early-80's versions of > network utilities. Makes me nostalgic for Xenix 286 it does. NOT. Stabbing Xenix in the face now. And again. And once more.
From: Robert G. Werner Date: 00:28 on 26 Apr 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities Peter da Silva wrote: [snip] > Hey, HP, it's 2005, you haven't updated this software in 20 years, isn't it > about effing time you did? Wouldn't it have been a REALLY GOOD IDEA to take > advantage of the fact that Tru64 is based on 4.3-Reno (AKA 4.4 beta) instead > of 4.2 or 4.1D or whatever prehistoric discarded backup tape you used to spawn > HPUX from, and use it instead of this ... AUGH > > HATE > > I loved my time running backups on HPUX that I scrubbed all references to it from my resume. No dump. Seems like tar didn't like to give out a list of the files it backed up. The OS had really wierd partition naming schemes. CDE. None of the shells could figure out the correct terminal stuff ...
From: Steve Peters Date: 15:40 on 03 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities On 4/25/05, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > % route add net 192.168.127.0 192.168.81.1 > add net 192.168.127.0: gateway 192.168.81.1: Network is unreachable > % ifconfig lan5 > lan5: flags=3D843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> > inet 192.168.81.12 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.81.255 > % ping 192.168.81.1 > ping 192.168.81.1 > PING 192.168.81.1: 64 byte packets > 64 bytes from 192.168.81.1: icmp_seq=3D0. time=3D0. ms > ... > % # netstat -rn > Routing tables > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Interface Pmtu > 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 lo0 4136 > ... > 192.168.126.0 192.168.81.1 UG 0 lan5 0 > % route add net 192.168.127.0 192.168.81.1 > add net 192.168.127.0: gateway 192.168.81.1: Network is unreachable > % ... >=20 > To make a long story short, HPUX "route" command things this is still 198= 7 > and goes >=20 > "Hmmm, no metric, let's pull 0 out of my ass" > "Hmmm, what's the gateway? How many hops away is that?" > "Hey, he said metric 0, and that's one hop!" > "This mother needs a confusing error message, telling me that 1 hop gatew= ay > is 0 hops away like that" >=20 > I just LOVE dealing with a computer that's using early-80's versions of > network utilities. Makes me nostalgic for Xenix 286 it does. NOT. >=20 > Hey, HP, it's 2005, you haven't updated this software in 20 years, isn't = it > about effing time you did? Wouldn't it have been a REALLY GOOD IDEA to ta= ke > advantage of the fact that Tru64 is based on 4.3-Reno (AKA 4.4 beta) inst= ead > of 4.2 or 4.1D or whatever prehistoric discarded backup tape you used to = spawn > HPUX from, and use it instead of this ... AUGH >=20 > HATE >=20 I guess the issue with trying to move Tru64 utilities to HP-UX is that Tru64 is, or was, OSF based rather than SysV, meaning that blurring the distinction between the two would require additional liscense from SCO (fuckers!) for each Tru64 installation. So, unless you'd like to give those fucking dickheads some money... Yours in hate, Steve Peters
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:23 on 03 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities > I guess the issue with trying to move Tru64 utilities to HP-UX is that > Tru64 is, or was, OSF based rather than SysV, Absolutely not. OSF/1 requires a System V license, and every one of the utilities in question are BSD-licensed anyway.
From: Zack Weinberg
Date: 18:15 on 03 May 2005
Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities
peter@xxxxxxx.xxx (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> I guess the issue with trying to move Tru64 utilities to HP-UX is that
>> Tru64 is, or was, OSF based rather than SysV,
>
> Absolutely not. OSF/1 requires a System V license, and every one of the
> utilities in question are BSD-licensed anyway.
I have it on good authority that the HP-UX shell utilities are
deliberately frozen in their archaic state, because management is
terrified of breaking their customers' dusty decks^H^H^H^H^Hshell
scripts. HP's obsession with backward compatibility is frightening;
we are talking here about an operating system that only enforces the
CPU-time ulimit against executables linked with
/usr/lib/hpux{32,64}/unix95.o. Which is not the default, nor was it
done to most of the system binaries. Hate.
zw
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:24 on 03 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities > I have it on good authority that the HP-UX shell utilities are > deliberately frozen in their archaic state, because management is > terrified of breaking their customers' dusty decks^H^H^H^H^Hshell > scripts. I know. That's why I originally suggested just porting the whole HPUX userland over to Tru64, and junking the kernel... then letting me choose which side I was compatible with. > HP's obsession with backward compatibility is frightening; Yeh. It's like Microsoft.
From: Zack Weinberg Date: 22:51 on 03 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities peter@xxxxxxx.xxx (Peter da Silva) writes: > That's why I originally suggested just porting the whole HPUX > userland over to Tru64, and junking the kernel... then letting me > choose which side I was compatible with. Thing is, I think their backward compatibility obsession extends as far as third-party kernel extensions. Why else would they have gone to the trouble of bolting a big-endian mode on the side of the IA64 (scuse me, IPF) so they could continue to use their kernel for that? They say they didn't want to audit their kernel for endianisms, but Tru64 was already little-endian-sound, being DEC product. Besides which, having two incompatible sets of shell utilities on the same system would be a recipe for misery and hate in itself, especially when /bin/sh would (of course) remain the old horrible thing that it is. Having the mostly-the-same /usr/xpg4 variants is bad enough. Do I need to mention Pyramid? zw
From: David Champion Date: 23:55 on 03 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities * On 2005.05.03, in <877jigf06q.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>, * "Zack Weinberg" <zack@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Besides which, having two incompatible sets of shell utilities on the > same system would be a recipe for misery and hate in itself, especially But this is old hat(e) for HP. DomainOS? HP-UX 7 or is it 9 or is it 7, and where did 8 go; but thank you Apollo and hello POSIX, would you cosy into 10 while we slip around you and make 11 which is almost but not quite much like UNIX, finally? HP's explorations of UNIX have been a disaster for more than a decade, and with the current dash of cleverness I see only that they enjoy their lifestyle.
From: David Cantrell Date: 11:11 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:51:09PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Besides which, having two incompatible sets of shell utilities on the > same system would be a recipe for misery and hate in itself See also: /bin vs /usr/ucb on Sun
From: Arthur Bergman Date: 12:39 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities On 4 May 2005, at 11:11, David Cantrell wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:51:09PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > >> Besides which, having two incompatible sets of shell utilities on the >> same system would be a recipe for misery and hate in itself > > See also: /bin vs /usr/ucb on Sun > > -- > David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information > > attractivating: inducing the quality of being attractive, > especially to members of the appropriate sex. -- Henrik Levkowetz > /opt/freeware/bin opt/freeware/GNUPro/bin guess which operating system? ----- CTO @ Fotango Ltd +447834716919 http://www.fotango.com/
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 13:52 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: HPUX tcp/ip utilities > > Besides which, having two incompatible sets of shell utilities on the > > same system would be a recipe for misery and hate in itself > See also: /bin vs /usr/ucb on Sun I've used HPUX. I've used Solaris. I can't say I'm thrilled by either, but I know which misery and hate I prefer.
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi