richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/01/85)
UNIX^tm has been ported onto 680xx's, Z800x's, 80xxx's (why we don't know...), and a number of people are working on porting it to 32xxx's. There's only one problem with UNIX on a micro: portability. UNIX is not designed for you to pull out a disk, walk to the machine 20 ft. away from you, and boot up. Even the micro implementations don't handle the problem politely. Given that we can't have (and may not want) straight UNIX on a micro, what do we wamt? for starters: 1) we do want a program to be considered an extension of the operating system (a process), rather than a subroutine which is called by the OS. UNIX treats programs as shell extensions, MVS + RSTS + DOS 3.3 + SOS don't. 2) multi-tasking. Multi-user is clumsy on a micro, but multi- tasking is a joy. (I edit in Turbo while I run MASM while...) 3) pipelining + redirection. This is a very useful extension of the process theory. 4) windows makes a nice user interface... I didn't say mice, I said windows. Mice are an inconvenience for a hobbyist. The keyboard is a relatively natural input device. 5) a logical or semi-logical command structure (unlike unix) would be nice. 6) tree-structured directories make life FAR easier. And now for a truly revolutionary idea, if it can be pulled off: an OS which will run on all of the common 16-bit or wider processors. I'm serious. It would be nice to be able to plug my newest tool into the TI-Pro I usually work on and into the HP 68000-based machine here at school. points 1-5 are easy to implement, they're a fairly simple programming task. point 6 is another story. First, a system disk, or a very high storage disk drive becomes necessary. Why? Seven boot op-systems on one disk: NS32032, Z80001, Z8002, MC68000, MC68020, MC68010, 8086, 80186, 80286 ... correction, 9. thats roughly half a disk + applications. So, the system disk would contain: 9 boot systems, and a 4 each of Pascal, C, and Basic Compilers/Interpreters. Four of each because only one is needed for each processor family. That 9 shell/boot code figure can be cut down by using code which is self-modifying at load time. The boot disk also needs an assembler and loader for each family. Net result: at least 32 files representing one VERY packed 400K+ disk, or 2 moderately packed disks. That means carrying around 4 disks (2 boot, 1 source, and 1 code for your favorite machine), which is not an inordinate number. It also suggests a very effective programming style: write in an HLL, then compile, then kludge to maximum efficiency. But youi come out with portability that is unparalleled. This leaves one major question: Is it worth the effort to achieve a system which makes today's concept of portability look silly? orstcs!richardt "At last, I can see, where we all soon shall be" -- Judas Iscariot, Jesus Christ Superstar BTW, a good 68000 lookalike is OS-9/68K. OS-9 was developed a few years ago, possibly before UNIX (!!!), and is a nice surrogate. It has a more logical command structure, but does not have SH or CSH, although I'm told that they're working on it. It doesn't have them because OS-9 was originally developed for a 6809 (!!!). OS-9/68K is an upgrade/refit for a 68000.
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (08/05/85)
In article <700006@orstcs.UUCP> richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: >UNIX^tm has been ported onto 680xx's, Z800x's, 80xxx's, >and a number of people are working on porting it to 32xxx's. There's only one >problem with UNIX on a micro: portability. UNIX is not designed for you to >pull out a disk, walk to the machine 20 ft. away from you, and boot up. Even >the micro implementations don't handle the problem politely. > > what do we want? > >for starters: > 1) processes > 2) multi-tasking. > 3) pipelining + redirection. > 4) windows > 5) a logical or semi-logical command structure > 6) tree-structured directories make life FAR easier. > >And now for a truly revolutionary idea, if it can be pulled off: an OS >which will run on all of the common 16-bit or wider processors. . . . Well yeah, but..... Your concept of portability is funny. Why do you need it ? And (much more importantly) what level of portability is wanted ? Trivial stuff, or portability to the degree that any program will port with absolutely no changes ? The crux of the problem isn't the features that you might want on your system, but the portability that you obviously require to do this kind of thing. Several projects come to mind as trying to do this: Waterloo Port: -- an outgrowth of work done to create the Thoth Operating System is currently taking place on a newer OS called PORT. Current experience is that stuff (the OS) ports fairly easily. I don't recall that it runs on a lot of different machines, though. Runs on PC's, etc. V System, developed at Stanford: -- runs on Suns. Anyway, the big problem of taking program "a" on machine "x" & moving it to machine "y" is that system dependencies inevitably show up, no matter what. >So, the system disk would contain: 9 boot systems, and a 4 each of Pascal, >C, and Basic Compilers/Interpreters. Four of each because only one is >needed for each processor family. . . . >This leaves one major question: Is it worth the effort to achieve a system >which makes today's concept of portability look silly? > > orstcs!richardt My gut feel is to call this concept of portability "silly", simply because it isn't obvious why one would want it. You essentially get to the point where you program at the lowest common denominator. Using an automotive analogy, this is like asking that all cars be able to use that same tires or something. > >BTW, a good 68000 lookalike is OS-9/68K. OS-9 was developed a few years ago, >possibly before UNIX (!!!), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh sure, probably a few weeks after the first IBM 1401 was sold. >command structure, but does not have SH or CSH, although I'm told that >they're working on it. It doesn't have them because OS-9 was originally >developed for a 6809 (!!!). OS-9/68K is an upgrade/refit for a 68000. Yes, son, we know. When did YOU get into the act, last week ? Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/13/85)
> In article <700006@orstcs.UUCP> richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: > >problem with UNIX on a micro: portability. UNIX is not designed for you to > >pull out a disk, walk to the machine 20 ft. away from you, and boot up. Even Why do you want to do that? Better leave UNIX running on both & just take your programs over. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076