smq@hlhop.UUCP (Steven M. Queriolo) (06/21/84)
OK, here are some queries that should spark some discussion in net.micro.6809:
Well, I just configured my White CoCo with two drives, and OS9. The first
drive is a white RS drive, the second, a shugart.
(1) I ran the OS-9 drive test and found that the rpm's on the RS were
about 300.1; the shugart was around 297.5 Disks written on one can
be read by the other, so I don't see any problem, right now. But is
this a problem for the future? Might I have trouble reading other
people's disks? Is 1% rpm difference acceptable?
(2) With OS-9, I haven't picked up a C compiler yet. What are the
recomended ones? And, how close are they to K&R?
(3) How about other language compilers for OS-9? Pascal? Ada?
(4) How about a good editor that runs under OS-9? Maybe a vi or emacs
clone.
(5) Anyone port any other UNIX commands to OS-9? Maybe a package of
routines?
(6) Since files are timestamped, I am contemplating writing an incremental
backup utility. Do any of the C's support getting the timestamp on files?
(7) Why did OS-9 developers not use the actual UNIX command names?
Were they trying to make it user-friendly?
(8) What is the difference between t1 and p? Don't they use the same port?
As I get deeper into OS-9, I'll post more items for discussion.
--
Steven M. Queriolo
AT&T Bell Laboratories
..........hlhop!smqdyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (06/22/84)
I ran the OS-9 drive test and found that the rpm's on the RS were
about 300.1; the shugart was around 297.5 Disks written on one can
be read by the other, so I don't see any problem, right now. But is
this a problem for the future? Might I have trouble reading other
people's disks? Is 1% rpm difference acceptable?
I believe that 297.5 is perfectly acceptable. However, when I purchased
an after-market disk drive and found it slighly slow, much as yours is,
I took it back to the place I bought it and they adjusted the speed so that
it was on the nose. Most every drive has such an adjustment, though I
wouldn't trust the job to myself.
With OS-9, I haven't picked up a C compiler yet. What are the
recomended ones? And, how close are they to K&R?
I have the Radio Shack/Microware C compiler. It is pretty much standard
K&R, save for structure assignment and passing, bit-fields and enums.
It works just fine, except that any multi-pass compiler is excruciatingly
slow on a floppy disk based system. I would also recommend that you
get double sided 40tk drives to make this bearable; otherwise one is
always swapping /d0/cmds disks, etc.
How about other language compilers for OS-9? Pascal? Ada?
I have Microware's BASIC09 which is rather like a cross between
PASCAL and BASIC. Nice, fast, interpreted compiled language (interpreted
I-code.) Unfortunately, due to the orthodoxy of the developers at
Microware, it has two severe deficiencies:
no user-supplied functions (all are procedures, and value returning
is simulated with call-by-reference.)
no global variables--all variables must be local or passed by
reference to procedures.
I don't doubt that one could adopt a programming style appropriate to
this, and it is by far better and faster than any BASIC I have seen, but
these two misfeatures have prevented me from using this as much as I
thought I would.
How about a good editor that runs under OS-9? Maybe a vi or emacs
clone.
After struggling with the OS9 line editor (which makes UNIX "ed" look
like a gem) I finally purchased Dynastar from Frank Hogg Labs in Syracuse.
This particular version runs with the FHL O-Pak which steals 8K to create
a 24 x 51 (or so) bit-mapped screen. It's not quite VI or EMACS, but it's
not bad at all for a full screen editor. I found myself getting used to
it very quickly.
Anyone port any other UNIX commands to OS-9? Maybe a package of
routines?
There are several companies doing just this. I purchased "Utilix" from
FHL for $49, which is quite a steal: "grep", "sort", "cat", "pr" and a bunch
of others. Unfortunately, "grep" works best with wild card expansion,
which the OS9 shell lacks. My next pet project is to produce an analogue
to /etc/glob, the pre-V7 UNIX wildcard expansion program.
Since files are timestamped, I am contemplating writing an incremental
backup utility. Do any of the C's support getting the timestamp on files?
Microware C provides interfaces to all the OS9 system calls, so I would
assume that you would have access to this.
Why did OS-9 developers not use the actual UNIX command names?
Were they trying to make it user-friendly?
Pure perversity. Actually, I have always thought that they got much of
the sound of UNIX down pat, but little of the sense. Witness "build",
a program which reads the standard input and creats a file
under the name of its argument. What the hell is the matter with
"cat > filename"?
What is the difference between t1 and p? Don't they use the same port?
Yes they do. The serial bit-banger driver is a complete crock, and /t1
is practically useless at speeds greater than 300 baud. The
different devices interpret the 4 serial wires differently--/p uses
carrier detect (I think) for flow control and is unidirectional, /t1
attempts valiantly to be a full-duplex device. Obviously you wouldn't
want to use both at once (it MUST be obvious because Radio Shack surely
neglected to mention this in its manuals!)
--
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAcmf@cwruecmp.UUCP (Carl Fongheiser) (06/22/84)
The difference between /p and /t1 is very simple. With /p, the RD line is used to test printer status. With /t1, the RD line is used as the Read Data line. Who knows why they named the commands differently? Does it matter? Is 'ls' necessarily better than 'dir'? Carl Fongheiser ...!decvax!cwruecmp!cmf