cyrus@symplex.UUCP (cyrus) (08/31/85)
I, like many others, are very impressed with the hardware support on the Amiga.
In articles I've read they keep talking about multi-tasking.
The real question is when will Unix be sold for it and who will support it.
I would prefer a complete v7 as opposed to an unbundled sysV.
Anyone have details?
"I want my AH MEE GAH" -Cyrus Azar (313) 995-1555 || ihnp4!umich!symplex!cyrus
Symplex Communication Corporation
5 Research Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48103peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/02/85)
> The real question is when will Unix be sold for it and who will support it. The real question is whether anyone will if the O/S is in ROM, and how they will handle the lack of an MMU. > I would prefer a complete v7 as opposed to an unbundled sysV. So would I, but even VenturCom is going to SV for its new ports. The only spark of hope is that someone will drop in a 68010 and do 4.2.
will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) (09/11/85)
Good argument for UNIX on the ST (go ahead and eat it)
Why port UN*X to a perfectly friendly computer that has its own
multi tasking OS and a C compiler? Whatever human interface it has
can't be any worse than UN*X. Most of the good tools associated
with UN*X are to be had elsewhere for a song. Why drag along all
of the multi-user stuff? If a computer in my bedroom didn't let
me get at a file, I'd pull its plug!
How about it Amiga owners, show us the Commodores worst command
syntax. I'll place my bets that they are all UN*X kindred.
--
William H. Fuller
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!willjimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/28/85)
In article <286@anasazi.UUCP> will@anasazi.UUCP (Will Fuller) writes: >Why port UN*X to a perfectly friendly computer that has its own >multi tasking OS and a C compiler? Whatever human interface it has Well, I've said this before elsewhere but, multitasking is only part of the 'full kit' that many people want these days. I'm constantly talking to people who want to access their work computers at home and or their home computers at work. That means they need the remote handling functions and login handling which are generally added after the fact (ie.--kludged, as is 'BYE' in CP/M and the 'host' utilities I've seen for MS-DOS and a lot of other systems). Once you write a 'host' for a multi-tasking system, full multi-user simply doesn't take much more code (if any). OS-9 on the Color Computer is fully multi-user and I've been using it for over a year now on a 64K system. There are no disadvantages, only advantages. As for 'real Unix', well, that's more complicated. Unix isn't as efficient as OS-9 or some of the other Unix 'like' operating systems. Personally, I feel that OS-9 is freind- lier than Unix as well. However, the reason to have 'real' Unix is to allow software portability. 'C' isn't all that portable. In fact, it's not even as portable as Microsoft BASIC. >can't be any worse than UN*X. Most of the good tools associated >with UN*X are to be had elsewhere for a song. Why drag along all >of the multi-user stuff? If a computer in my bedroom didn't let >me get at a file, I'd pull its plug! Why won't your system let you get at a file (I assume your Unix system has some kind of trouble which you are referring to, otherwise, I can't see what you're talking about at all here.)? > >How about it Amiga owners, show us the Commodores worst command >syntax. I'll place my bets that they are all UN*X kindred. (Not my problem. I haven't decided whether I like Amiga yet or not. I like the Atari ST-520 so far, but ...) >-- >William H. Fuller >{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!will -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura