blarson@usc-oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) (05/07/86)
In article <399@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >As to the superiority of UNIX over other operating systems, there are >few who think UNIX couldn't be improved. The big question is how? >I'm sure we will be seeing a rapid evolution of UNIX and UNIX-like >operating systems as multi-tasking micros and multi-processing minis >become mandatory state of the art, rather than expensive luxuries. >Hopefully, a few of them won't be "designed by commitee", Unix >started out right (a small group trying good ideas), but evolved >into a slow memory pig. Which leads to the UNIX definition in the os9/68k users manual: "An operating system similar to os-9, but with less functionality and special features designed to soak up excess memory, disk space and CPU time on large, expensive computers." >It would be nice to see Unix modularized, so that the whole kernal >doesn't have to be re-linked just to add two lines of code to a >driver. As in os9. >It would be nice if the queuing and signalling as well as >the context switches could be cleaned up. >It would be nice to have >generic "transaction" mechanisms similar to pipes, so that work could >be shared between processes. Are os9/68k's named pipes what you are looking for? >It would be nice to have locks, so that >processes that wish to recieve input from several processors could do >so in real time. >It would be nice if "system libraries" were "sharable" >so that less copies of "printf" were taking up swap space. As in os9/68k, but I prefer how it is done in primos 19.4 and beond. (Primos uses some hardware support: fault bit on pointers.) >It would >be nice if all but the bare bones drivers could be "tasks" rather than >part of the kernal, so that only that which was needed at the moment >would sit in core. I think os9/68k has what you are asking for here. >The list goes on, but most has been hashed to death already. And much of it is unique to unix. Not all "Unix-like" operating systems are bug-for-bug compatable. >If we wish to come up with better products, we have to look at both the >best and the worst in the best and worst of systems and languages, >operating systems, and archetictures. I haven't seen a system yet >that is so good that it can't be improved, or a system so bad that >there wasn't at least one or two good features in it. I agree. -- Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Ecl.Arpa Uucp: ihnp4!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!blarson
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/13/86)
Bob Larson apparently thinks OS9/68K is the greatest thing since Scarne invented Teeko, and that UNIX lacks several features enumerated in his article. Unfortunately for his argument, the current version of UNIX has all those features. UNIX != 4BSD