gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (11/12/85)
Like the Mormons of eld, the OS-9 contingent keeps finding new homes on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? I'd suggest "net.micro" since it seems to be a micro operating system and runs on many machines. You are welcome to petition for your own newsgroup, if you want. (net.micro.os-9?) There certainly seems to be "enough traffic clogging existing groups" to warrant one.
kosower@harvard.ARPA (David A. Kosower) (11/13/85)
I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered
with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer,
is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS!
David A. Kosowerblarson@oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) (11/14/85)
Net.micro.68k is an aproprate place for discussion of os9/68000.
(Perhaps the info-68k mailing list would be better, but a number
of people interested in os9/68k do not get it.) The only other
processor os9 is available for is the 6809, os9/6809 discusssions
should go in net.micro.6809. I do not beleive there is enough
volume of os9 postings to require a separate group yet. (Yes, I
would like one, but I don't think it yet meets the usenet group
creation requirements.)
Discussions of os9 on net.micro.atari and net.micro.amiga were
inappropreate, but understandable. (Followups should have been
redirected to net.micro.68k. (Microware has not yet autorized
anyone to port os9 to either the ST or the AMIGA.)
I will continue to post os9 messages to net.micro.6809, net.micro.68k,
and the info-68k mailing list as I feal the article warrents.
(Subscription request for info-68k should be sent to ucbvax!info-68k-request
or info-68k-request@berkely.edu)
--
Bob Larson
Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Ecl.Arpa
Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!blarson
{several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!blarsonmwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (11/14/85)
In article <500@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.UUCP (David A. kosower) writes: > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered >with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, >is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! I take it that you don't read the unix-related groups? [And there isn't a :-) because I'm not kidding.] <mike
daleske@cbdkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) (11/14/85)
In article <257@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Like the Mormons of eld, the OS-9 contingent keeps finding new homes >on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out >of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might >as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? > >I'd suggest "net.micro" since it seems to be a micro operating system >and runs on many machines. > >You are welcome to petition for your own newsgroup, if you want. >(net.micro.os-9?) There certainly seems to be "enough traffic clogging >existing groups" to warrant one. ---------------------- This response is intended to first help clear the mis-conception about OS-9. OS-9 currently has implementations on two microprocessors: 6809 & 68xxx. Why would you want to "chase out" a discussion directly relating to an operating system for the 68k? Why, especially, when the OS may prove to be just what an application of yours may need? Considering that OS-9 has been licensed for OVER one million installations it certainly is not a fly-by-night nor insignificant operating system (I understand this figure is around two to three times the number of UNIX licenses). For medium and small applications OS-9 has a LOT over UNIX! On the other hand, a centralized discussion of OS-9 would likely be a benefit. I read net.micro.68k AND net.micro.6809 primarily for OS-9 discussions. Since OS-9 may possibly extend to other microprocessors (substitute "likely the 32xxx") distributing the discussion among multiple newsgroups does seem rediculous. Similarly, discussions of other operating systems should be "chased out". UNIX on 68k systems should ONLY be discussed in net.micro.unix, right? :-) Actually, the group distinction of net.unix and net.unix-wizards should be changed to net.os.unix and another group net.os.os9 should be established. Then we could also have net.os.msdos, net.os.cpm (? any need any more?), net.os.vms, etc. Why not start out with net.os and see which other groups are needed? John Daleske ..cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske NOTE: No one else is responsible for these thoughts. Don't even think that my employers would want to support them!
daleske@cbdkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) (11/14/85)
In article <500@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.UUCP (David A. kosower) writes: > > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered >with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, >is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! > > David A. Kosower Oooooh boy! My first inclination was to send the net message which enables the 50k volt zap on your keyboard. It seems to me that you would better serve yourself and others in looking at OS-9 in more detail before expressing yourself so foolishly. Of course, this is not the first time unfounded, inflamatory commentaries have been stated. First, state which OS to you is "real" and why. Perhaps we should petition for forming net.os and discuss it there. My system at home is a 68000 with 256K RAM and a 6502 as a front-end I/O processor (MTU-130 with DATAMOVER board). It currently only has two 8" DSDD floppy disk drives. There is no way that a good subset of UNIX would effectively fit on that configuration; certainly for not more than a single user. My MTU-130 could support a couple developers or quite a few light application users (e.g. text editing or whatever). For smaller (read much less expensive) systems yes, OS-9 IS "ooooh-sooo-wonderful". John Daleske NOTE: I take responsibility for my own statements. cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske My employers aren't implied.
dibble@rochester.UUCP (Peter C. Dibble) (11/14/85)
> on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out > of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might > as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? OS-9 runs on 6809s and all types of 68Ks. It doesn't run on any other processors. It looks to me like net.micro.6809 and net.micro.68k are the newsgroups that best fit OS-9. Are these newsgroups for hardware issues only? If they are I appologize for bothering you with software issues but I was misled by the large number of software postings. Peter Dibble
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/14/85)
In article <257@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Like the Mormons of eld, the OS-9 contingent keeps finding new homes >on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out >of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might >as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? > >I'd suggest "net.micro" since it seems to be a micro operating system >and runs on many machines. > >You are welcome to petition for your own newsgroup, if you want. >(net.micro.os-9?) There certainly seems to be "enough traffic clogging >existing groups" to warrant one. No. You have no point in your submission at all. OS-9 runs on 680xx processors. In fact, the whole point here is that it's likely one of the most useful tools you'll ever have on the 680xx world. It is one of the only possibilities for tying the whole mess together. If you don't know that, then you don't know 68000. Cheers! -- Jim O. P.S.: Welcome to the argument :-) -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
wb6rqn@yojna1.UUCP (Brian Lloyd) (11/15/85)
> > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered > with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, > is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! > > David A. Kosower What is your definition of a "real" OS? OS-9 appears to have some nice features that UNIX doesn't, like real-time services and a ROM-able kernel. For someone who is building a dedicated system, OS-9 may just be solution he is seeking. In any case, OS-9 is far less a toy than CP/M or MS-DOS. Where would you have this discussion go? There is no relelevant news group that will currently meet the needs (net.os doesn't exist yet). Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN ...![bellcore!cp1]!yojna1!wb6rqn
steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) (11/15/85)
In article <500@harvard.ARPA>, kosower@harvard.ARPA (David A. Kosower) writes: [ about home computers, the OS9 operating system, and recreational computing ] > > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered > with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, > is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! > > David A. Kosower Kosower's remarks embarass me and his organization. I urge him to select a different occupation. Meanwhile, Mr. Kosower, please keep your useless, childish remarks to yourself. Steve Childress {trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex} !wlbr!steve or ...wlbr!wlbreng1!steve
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/15/85)
There seems to be a demand for an OS-9 group. I myself am impeded from reading n.m.68k because of the traffic. Since it seems to be a micro OS, let's follow the precedent of n.m.cpm and have it created as net.micro.os-9. Someone who is generating the traffic and wants the change should initiate voting at this point. I am directing follow-ups to this articcle to net.news.group. C. Wingate
coffin@mot.UUCP (Dracula) (11/15/85)
> on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out > of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might > as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? Apparently here we have a need for a new newsgroup mebbe? net.micro.os9 or whatever? I believe that the fundamental conditions are there, 1. There is a substantial amount of traffic concerning os9 in micro.6809 and micro.68k and even in micro.amiga etc. 2. Apparently, some people are upset that we are discussing the os that allows us to run progs from PDP-11's, VAXes, CRAY-2's etc. on our "toy" computers WITHOUT MODIFICATION! within "THEIR" newsgroups. This would seem to establish the "need" for such a newsgroup. However, with all the noise in news.group lately about .bizzare and .internat, I am reluctant to create more noise in that group. I am not totally cognizant of the procedures used to start a vote, and so I will mail a copy of this to spaf@gatech and see if he thinks it might be worthwhile. Meanwhile I'll hide behind my flame-retardant force field. Chris Coffin ihnp4!mot!coffin seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!coffin Disclaimer: I'm the urban spaceman baby, here comes the twist... I don't exist!
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/16/85)
In article <500@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.UUCP (David A. kosower) writes: > > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered >with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, >is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! > > David A. Kosower The next time you fly over Montreal (assuming you ever do), you will take comfort in knowing that your life is in the good hands of a Gimix III, *OS-9* level II, 256K, 6809 based system. Welcome to the real world! Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/16/85)
My last response on this question was deliberately inflamatory
and quite frankly a bit for the sake of fun. Seriously, as I understand
it, a new 'net' group would have to have a 'moderator' who is willing
to accumulate all the info. The decision to have a new net before
someone comes forward to volunteer their services seems backwards to
me. Am I wrong in my understanding of the situation?
Otherwise, I don't really mind the idea. I *do* however, feel that
those of you who simply ignore OS-9 out of hand (out of ignorance)
rate your knowledge of 6809 or 680xx higher than you should. Would you
appreciate my legal advice on a matter of importance if I only knew
one aspect of it and was totally ignorant of the central legal issues?
How many here are or will be in a position to advise people as to system
development and/or purchase and will simply be parroting what they know
about their little world? Believe it or not, I actually *like* hearing
about *all* other systems. How many of you like to call yourselves
"professionals"?
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
Compuserve: 72205,541
MTS at WU: GKL6phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/17/85)
In article <1214@cbdkc1.UUCP> daleske@dkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) writes: >First, state which OS to you is "real" and why. Perhaps we should >petition for forming net.os and discuss it there. This is easy. State the OS that you are reading this msg on, the OS whose supporters pay many thousands of dollars per site per month to move such msgs around. Now explain to them what they get out of moving your irritating OS-9 traffic around. -- Raise snails for fun and profit! Race them for amusement! Then eat the losers! Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (11/17/85)
In article <389@wlbr.UUCP>, steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: > In article <500@harvard.ARPA>, kosower@harvard.ARPA (David A. Kosower) writes: > > [ about home computers, the OS9 operating system, and recreational computing ] > > > > > I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered > > with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, > > is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! > > > > David A. Kosower > > Kosower's remarks embarass me and his organization. > I urge him to select a different occupation. > Meanwhile, Mr. Kosower, please keep your useless, childish remarks to yourself. I think the original comments were on the mark. A new group is needed, because: 1) The traffic of OS-9 discussion is high 2) There are a lot of readers of 68k (6809) who don't want to read about OS-9, and some who want OS9 without 68k/6809. Whether OS-9 is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. Most of us 68k'ers would be perfectly content to have the cult members continue to believe so, as long as they do so elsewhere. -- Joel West (619) 457-9681 CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037 {cbosgd,ihnp4,pyramid,sdcsvax,ucla-cs}!gould9!joel gould9!joel@nosc.ARPA
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (11/18/85)
In article <918@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >In article <500@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.UUCP (David A. kosower) writes: >>[something nasty] > > The next time you fly over Montreal (assuming you ever do), you >will take comfort in knowing that your life is in the good hands of >a Gimix III, *OS-9* level II, 256K, 6809 based system. >... (I'm interested in details, since my first (and probably incorrect) impression was that this machine was reponsible for targeting missiles or directing air traffic or someting like that.) I also vote for a separate group, but I suspect that net.micro.6809 will collapse given the near-absence of any input. Then 6809 processor discussion will (should) move to net.micro. I prefer a moderated group to an unmoderated one, because it will provide an opportunity for the moderator to establish an os-9 software archive at the moderation site. I'm willing to do this, if necessary, but I'd rather have someone who actually uses an OS-9 system to step forward and volunteer. (My interest in OS-9 is in writing TNC code for packet radio, which I expect to do when I get my license.) I suggest the name mod.computers.operating-systems.os-9, given the fact it is easier for a naive USENET reader to understand this than something like mod.os9. The disadvantage is that you may actually have to type this name occasionally, but it appears that many people have software that lets them avoid this, and I feel the benefit of a meaningful name outweighs the inconvenience. - Ralph
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/18/85)
>> I second this proposal. I've tired of having my news cluttered >>with allegations that this toy operating system, running on a toy computer, >>is but ooooh-sooo-wonderful. Grow up and start using a real OS! >My system at home is a 68000 with 256K RAM and a 6502 as a front-end >I/O processor (MTU-130 with DATAMOVER board). It currently only has >two 8" DSDD floppy disk drives. There is no way that a good subset of >UNIX would effectively fit on that configuration; certainly for not >more than a single user. My MTU-130 could support a couple developers >or quite a few light application users (e.g. text editing or >whatever). For smaller (read much less expensive) systems yes, OS-9 >IS "ooooh-sooo-wonderful". I have nothing against OS-9; I'm just getting a little tired of having these pro/con-OS-9 flames bouncing back and forth in net.micro.68k. Virtual memory, pipes, filesystems, etc. What does all that have to do with the 68000? I currently have no intention (read: desire, yes, money, no) to buy a 68xxx system that will run either OS-9 or UNIX, and I'm sure there are others like me reading net.micro.68k. I do have an interest in 68xxx architechture, though, and welcome any sort of technical discussions about hardware/software/firmware that deal with mainly the 68xxx, and not with the choice of operating system. What Gene says in net.announce.newusers is that net.micro.68k is for "discussions about the 68k". It certainly isn't for doing battle with flamethrowers between UNIX and OS-9. Powers-that-be, please give OS-9 its own newsgroup. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979 * UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories
bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) (11/18/85)
In article <6433@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1214@cbdkc1.UUCP> daleske@dkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) writes: >>First, state which OS to you is "real" and why. Perhaps we should >>petition for forming net.os and discuss it there. > >This is easy. State the OS that you are reading this msg on, the OS >whose supporters pay many thousands of dollars per site per month to >move such msgs around. Now explain to them what they get out of >moving your irritating OS-9 traffic around. Since not all of the microcomputers in the marketplace can (or care to) support Unix, are you then suggesting the removal of net.micro.cpm, pc, mac, ...... ? I consider your thinking remarkably parochial. Bob Halloran Sr MTS, CONCURRENT Computer Corp (Formerly Perkin-Elmer DSG) ============================================================================= UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\ {pesnta, topaz, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724 DDD: (201) 758-7000 Disclaimer: I doubt that my employer wants anything to do with my opinions. Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter Thompson
rick@cheviot.uucp (Rick Brooker) (11/18/85)
I propose the setting up a net.micro.real6809 newsgroup to
permit discussion of matters relating to the 6809 and leaving
net.micro.6809, net.micro.68k, net.toilet, etc. for those
jerks who still think they can extract some more out of the
OS-9 rantings. :-)
Alternatively, I propose the removal of ALL CROSS-POSTINGS to
the net. Then people would have to exercise some thought as
to where to post their drivel, hopefully reducing the need
for content-free follow-up postings such as this.
P.S Yes! I know this is cross-posted as well! You can't expect
people to pratice what they preach :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from
the masses not from some farcical aquatic ceremony !"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick (E.R.G) Brooker, Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK
ARPA : rick%cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
JANET : rick@uk.ac.newcastle.cheviot
UUCP : <UK>!ukc!cheviot!rick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/19/85)
In article <6433@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1214@cbdkc1.UUCP> daleske@dkc1.UUCP ( John Daleske x4335 3E296 RAA) writes: >>First, state which OS to you is "real" and why. Perhaps we should >>petition for forming net.os and discuss it there. > >This is easy. State the OS that you are reading this msg on, the OS >whose supporters pay many thousands of dollars per site per month to >move such msgs around. Now explain to them what they get out of >moving your irritating OS-9 traffic around. > > Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 Paying the bills is an interesting point Phil. Have you ever noticed how many cites are Schools? As for the Canadian Schools, including University of Toronto, and University of Waterloo and a few others on the net, I can tell you who pays the bills. *I* do. As a taxpayer, I and millions of other Canadians across Canada provide almost all the funding for Canadian schools of higher education. Nobody asked me what software these schools would use. In the US there's a fair amount of Gov. funding too, but have you ever asked an alumnae association what kind of software a school should use? Heck they probably wouldn't be competent to comment on it anyway. Cheers! -- Jim O. PS:--I agree. This stuff should have a place of it's own. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (11/19/85)
>In article <389@wlbr.UUCP>, steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress) writes: >>In article <500@harvard.ARPA>, kosower@harvard.ARPA (David A. Kosower) writes: > > > [Nonsense] > > > David A. Kosower > > Kosower's remarks embarass me and his organization. > > I think the original comments were on the mark. A new group > is needed, because: > 1) The traffic of OS-9 discussion is high > 2) There are a lot of readers of 68k (6809) who don't want to read > about OS-9, and some who want OS9 without 68k/6809. > Whether OS-9 is the best thing since sliced bread is irrelevant. > Most of us 68k'ers would be perfectly content to have the cult > members continue to believe so, as long as they do so elsewhere. > -- Some of use 68k'ers don't believe that Operating Systems Research consists exclusively of reading the EE Times for when Western Electric's next release of UNIX(tm)* SYSTEM (.+1) is due out. I would prefer that the OS-9 discussion focus more on features than "DOES TOO!", but that could only be helped if all of the "DOES NOT!" people would unplug their terminals and go back to their sandboxes. (*) UNIX is, of course, a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Says so right on the label! -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Out of my way, I'm a scientist! War of the Worlds
spertus@fisher.UUCP (Mike Spertus) (11/21/85)
> Like the Mormons of eld, the OS-9 contingent keeps finding new homes > on the Usenet and then being chased out. I'd like to chase them out > of net.micro.68k. OS-9 doesn't have a lot to do with 68k's; you might > as well post Unix-related messages in net.micro.68k too, right? > > I'd suggest "net.micro" since it seems to be a micro operating system > and runs on many machines. > > You are welcome to petition for your own newsgroup, if you want. > (net.micro.os-9?) There certainly seems to be "enough traffic clogging > existing groups" to warrant one. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (11/22/85)
In article <231@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: >In article <918@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >>In article <500@harvard.ARPA> kosower@harvard.UUCP (David A. kosower) writes: >>>[something nasty] >> >> The next time you fly over Montreal (assuming you ever do), you >>will take comfort in knowing that your life is in the good hands of >>a Gimix III, *OS-9* level II, 256K, 6809 based system. >>... >(I'm interested in details, since my first (and probably incorrect) impression >was that this machine was reponsible for targeting missiles or directing air >traffic or someting like that.) ... > > - Ralph It co-ordinates information for air traffic control. I'm putting together a magazine article about it. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6