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!smq
dyer@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.ARPA
cmf@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