moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/17/85)
In article <971@sdcsla.UUCP> clark@sdcsla.UUCP (Clark Quinn) writes: >[...]Could >someone briefly summarize the reason why there seems to be alot of interest in >this operating system? I am sure I am not the only one who has not heard of >it. Thanks in advance, -- Clark I've been programming on OS-9 for about four months, and am very satisfied with it. OS-9 is an operating system developed and sold through Microware Systems Corporation of Des Moines, Iowa. To summarize the entire OS would take more time than I'm willing to spend, but here are some of the major features of the OS-9/68k system (major to me, anyway): 1) Multi-processing, time-sharing operating system for the Motorola 68000 and 6809 family of processors. 2) Runs on re-entrant code (and compilers produce re-entrant code). 3) *Extremely* fast and compact, as the kernel is written in assembly language. 4) Unified I/O system (several devices use the same driver by having a one or two line descriptor defining their specific addresses, etc.). 5) Ability to share data between processes. 6) Extremely easy to include as much (or as little) ROM as you'd like into your system. This is due to the modular nature of the software. 7) Minimizes disk I/O through re-entrancy and memory management. 8) The C compiler is efficient; also has assembler, BASIC compiler, and soon Fortran and Pascal. All produce re-entrant code. Compiler and assembler available for cross-compilers on Unix and VMS. I've only used the C compiler and the assembler. 9) Making user-defined trap libraries is simple. 10) Most of the system subroutine calls are very Unix-like, and the few that aren't are usually vast improvements over their Unix counterparts (fork and signal in particular). 11) Real-time support through semaphores and events (latest revision). 12) Much faster and easier implementation of pipes (the latest revision has named pipes -- makes inter-process communication a breeze!). 13) Apparently they do have a window package available now, though I haven't seen it -- works with a Toshiba or Hitatchi video chip. 14) A shell with many Unix-like commands. Personally, I don't find the shell as nice as Berkeley Unix C-shell; but doing system programming in C for OS-9 is much, much easier than doing it for Unix, and it has all the major features Unix has (multiprocessing, inter-process communication, signals). The ease of using shared data between processes (after a year of munging Unix) is a pleasure. Besides, if you want to add Unix commands to the shell, I've found it *very* easy to get Unix C programs to run on OS-9 (though not visa-versa); I don't know where the rumor of difficulty in transporting Unix programs to OS-9 came from. Try taking a Unix command and getting it to work on CP/M-68K! Yoiks! All in all, a very holistic system to program for. I think it one of the best OS's on the market, ESPECIALLY for small systems not having several megs of disk space and limited memory (though it works even better WITH all that disk space...). DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with Microware Systems Corporation in any way. I just covet their operating system. "If you are beginning to doubt what I am saying, you are probably hallucinating." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) (09/18/85)
In article <2664@vax4.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) writes: >I've been programming on OS-9 for about four months, and am very satisfied >with it. OS-9 is an operating system developed and sold through Microware >Systems Corporation of Des Moines, Iowa. To summarize the entire OS would >take more time than I'm willing to spend, but here are some of the major >features of the OS-9/68k system (major to me, anyway): > >1) Multi-processing, time-sharing operating system for the Motorola 68000 > and 6809 family of processors. > >2) Runs on re-entrant code (and compilers produce re-entrant code). > >3) *Extremely* fast and compact, as the kernel is written in assembly > language. > >13) Apparently they do have a window package available now, though I > haven't seen it -- works with a Toshiba or Hitatchi video chip. Anyone know offhand what video hardware the Atari ST uses? If not compatible with that mentioned above, anyone know offhand how hard it would be to hack this window package for different hardware? (Second question of interest to Amiga fans as well, presumably) Is Microware on the net? Please reply by mail. If sufficient traffic, I'll summarize to the net. Bob Halloran Sr MTS, Perkin-Elmer DSG ============================================================================= UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\ {topaz, pesnta, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh ARPA: petsd!pedsgd!bobh@topaz USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724 DDD: (201) 758-7000 Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Quote: "BOO! We changed Coke again! BLEAH! BLEAH!"- The 'Boogums', Bloom County
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/24/85)
> All in all, a very holistic system to program for.
*FLAME ON* You just blew your credibility buddy *FLAME OFF*
Seriously, though. What makes OS/9 more "holistic" than UNIX? Back when
I was a tadpole "holism" was merely a method of approaching a problem.
It meant looking at the problem as a whole instead of a bunch of little
unconnected peices. The opposite is "reductionism" (not "conventionalism"),
which means breaking the problem down into parts small enough to deal with.
Does this mean that you have to write programs on OS/9 as if it were a
coherent whole, like you have to do with BASIC, or does it merely mean that it
seems to hang together well. I hope you mean the latter, even if that's
a bad misuse of the term.
Structured programming, incidentally, is not a holistic methodology.