Dear Allison,
   
> There is no blocking I know of still, save for unimplemented/undocumented
> capability.
   
   Well, maybe you'll change your mind when I quote the actual source lines
that do this blocking, as well as give you the name of the source file and
the line numbers so that you can make sure that I'm not misquoting them. I
hope the source files in question are present in the ordinary Ultrix
distribution, since they are necessary to build a custom kernel. (Certain
source files are given -D options that depend on the user-defined kernel
configuration, and sometimes they include header files that are generated
by config(8). This should prevent DEC from shipping them in the object
form.)
   
> So much babble deleted.  I really don't care, most here don't care.  It
> does have scsi, it can be used as such and all you have to do is do it.
   
   I have seen many people, you included, declare that one has to write a
driver to make an OS support generic SCSI on KA410. I find it important to
prove that this driver already exists and is artificially blocked. If I
post to this list and to all DEC newsgroups on Usenet how to make Ultrix
and maybe even VMS support generic SCSI on KA410 without writing a single
line of code, instead only DELETING some lines (those that do the
blocking), I'm sure that many people would be impressed (especially the
closed-minded VMSers who declare in a thundering voice that KA410 doesn't
have SCSI and you need a KA42 if you want it).
   
> You asked for config!  If you wanted GENERIC the file that is specificly
> readable you should have said so.
   
   How was I supposed to know that you are using GENERIC as opposed to a
custom kernel? By saying "kernel config file" I was referred to whatever
kernel configuration file your kernel has been built from, be it GENERIC or
something else. Are you using the GENERIC kernel from the distribution or
have you compiled it yourself? You can tell by watching the boot messages,
as the kernel tells you who has compiled it and when. If your kernel is a
custom one, a copy of your custom configuration file would help a lot,
since I obviously can't get YOUR OWN (or the previous owner's) changes from
the Ultrix distribution or docs.
   
> Of course if you had the docs for
> Ultrix you have that info in the installation manual.
   
   The one in "ULTRIX-32 V 3.1 / UWS V 2.1 Release Notes and Installation
Guide" (AA-ME85B-TE) is clearly wrong. It's obvious just from looking at it
that it's invalid. config(8) would reject it if you were to try typing it
in and using it.
   
> No severely reading impaired, <usra> is gone.
   
   You typing is so saturated with typos that I wasn't able to tell that
this is not one of them. What is "usra" anyway?
   
> Well I guess I have more info that you with a real vs2k infront of me
> running and some docs.
   
   I have one thing that you don't: open-mindedness to the possibility that
DEC did do something bad in this particular case. I understand you loyalty
to your former employer, but don't let it take over your good judgment. I
am open-minded to the following three possibilities:
   
   1. The same SCSI driver can be used on both KA410 and KA42/41, but it's
artificially blocked on the former.
   
   2. The slight hardware differences prevent the KA42/41 SCSI driver from
working on KA410.
   
   3. The same SCSI driver is used on both KA410 and KA42/41, and it is
loaded on both. This would mean that Ultrix supports SCSI disks on KA410
out of the box.
   
   My basic knowledge of the hardware in question makes the second
possibility seem unlikely to me. I have never heard of Ultrix supporting
SCSI disks on KA410 OUT OF THE BOX, so the third possibility also seems
unlikely to me. That's why I currently consider the first possibility the
most probable. In our phone conversation earlier today, Richard Parobek
(the DEC field service guy who is helping me) has told me that he may be
able to get some technical manuals for me next week, so maybe this debate
will switch from childish to technical soon :-).
   
> As to being "essentially BSD UNIX" apparently
> not sufficiently so for most people to consider Ultrix real unix.
   
   This depends on your definition of real UNIX. If it's Linux, FreeBSD, or
NetBSD, then probably you won't consider 4.3BSD-* "real UNIX" either.
   
> Also Ultrix 3.x is real acient and not likely relevent as it's likely
> different in the systems and possible configurations that were
> "supported".
   
   I _STRONGLY_ doubt this. In any case I have versions 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, and
4.2, so I'll compare them to make sure. Assuming that v4.x fits on an RZ23.
I have heard that in v4.x DEC has incorporated some changes from 4.3BSD-
Reno and possibly 4.4BSD. If this includes 4.4BSD's binary bloat, I simply
won't have enough disk space for it.
   
   Sincerely,
   Michael Sokolov
   Phone: 440-449-0299
   ARPA Internet SMTP mail: sokolov@alpha.ces.cwru.edu