Is the Unix-pc related to a Convergent Technologies computer?

[John Mcmillan]

In article <1041 at ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> kellow at ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (John Kellow) writes:
>
>Recently, I was told that the unix-pc was somehow related to a Convergent
>Technologies Miniframe and that the two are binary compatible.  I believe
>Miniframes were also sold by Burroughs, Gould, and Unisys.  Could anyone
>provide me with more information on this?  Just what exactly is a unix-pc
>anyway (I thought it was like an IBM-PC running Unix)?

CT did the manufacturing of the 7300 aka 3B1 aka UNIX-pc:
	The design shared technology from their Mini-Frame.
Their UNIX port was the basis of the UNIX-pc kernel.
This kernel was a hybrid of Berkeley features and SVR3.
Legal constraints on both parties required seperation of
	staffs from this point on: the Mini-Frame code was
	a point of departure.
Much of the underlying kernel code of the Mini-Frame remained.
Much was changed to further SVID [Sys V Interface Definition] compliance.
Much was added or corrected -- on both ends: we did NOT benefit
	from any bug-discoveries or extensions on the Mini-Frame end.
	['Cannot speak to reverse.]

Miniframe code would share subroutine calling conventions.
Almost all system calls would be compatible -- perhaps ALL.
(I cannot speak to any Mini-Frame use of Share Libraries.)
For practical purposes, the UNIX-pc and the Mini-Frame are bin' compatible.

I would be surprised to find that Unisys sold any Mini-Frames:
	I thought it was formed after the Mini-Frame was buried.
	I should have fonder recollections of Mini-Frames:
	they shared so much code and supported TWO disks.
	All I can remember is their crashing.  Selective recall?

You thought wrong: the MC68010 chip isn't very similar to the i*86 series.
Aesthetically, this is a big PLUS for the UNIX-pc.
Lucratively, this is a big MINUS for the UNIX-pc.

Nuff said.

john mcmillan -- att!mtune!jcm