os9@cbosgd.att.com (02/08/87)
OS-9 Discussions Sunday, February 8th 1987 Volume 2 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Re: A rookie's questions about OS-9 vs. Unix
OS9
OS-9 availability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator's note: I agree with James Jones' assessment of the comparison
between OS-9 and UNIX. A subtle note is that internationally OS-9 is more
well known than in the United States. In the US, OS-9 is primarily used
in process controls and by Radio Shack CoCo owners. Why BYTE has almost
ignored this segment of computing fails me. Knowing that Ciarcia uses
Z-80s for his process controls work and has a BASIC "OS" probably explains
part of it. If he only got out of the dark ages in process controls and
looked at a very powerful combination (6809 running OS-9) it would help!
Does OS-9 compare in terms of UNIX software? Yes and no. The standard OS-9
shell is getting more powerful. Much software sent across the net often
is as easy to port to OS-9 as it is from BSD to SYSV UNIX. OS-9 will run
well in much smaller hardware environments, such as a floppy-based ST.
UNIX would die. -- JDD]
Date: 5 Feb 1987 1330-CST (Thursday)
From: sun!mcrware!jejones (James Jones)
Subject: Re: A rookie's questions about OS-9 vs. Unix
In answer to your questions, I submit the following--do note that companies
and people in general have been known to run screaming from my opinions, so
said opinions don't necessarily represent anything but my views ...:-)
The specific questions first:
1. Microware's shell for OS-9 does support I/O redirection. To answer
a possible implicit question, yes, there are pipes.
2. I think it does a darned good job of multitasking. Note that OS-9's
way of creating processes is *not* like the Unix fork(), which eats
resources horribly unless you have heavy hardware assist (hence the
Berkeley kludge, vfork()), but does what 1 - epsilon of all programs
under Unix that use fork() really wanted to do in the first place,
fork a child running a specifiable program.
3. It is *quite* easily modifiable. Unlike Unix, which is one indigestible
statically-linked lump (with kludges built on recently for folks who
don't have source licenses), OS-9 is highly modular and supports dynamic
linking. If you want to try out a new device, write a device descriptor
module and a device driver module (if there isn't already one that does
what you want), load them up, and off you go. (Gee...I think I answered
your fourth question, too.)
Source for the kernel is almost *never* needed; one needs it only to
doing major surgery on the kernel itself. Adding devices or even new
types of devices does not constitute major surgery under this classifi-
cation. The only case I personally know of in which this has been done
(well, should have been done--Smoke Signal Broadcasting once tried to
"optimize" OS-9/6809 Level II, and put some notorious bugs in what they
finally sold) is one in which Gimix modified OS-9/6809 Level II to fully
exploit their hardware, which not only has memory mapping, but also has
memory management with some teeth in it.
>If OS-9 is the mighty midget I've been lead to believe, why can't I find
>any documentation on it in any publications?
Got me--you'll have to ask the editors of publications. In particular,
you might ask the editor of *BYTE* why it is that on their BIX blurb, you
can read
"BIX specials connect you with invited experts in leading-
edge topics--CD-ROM, MIDI, OS-9 and more...."
but a running total of all the references to OS-9 apart from ads I've
seen in *all* issues of *BYTE* has yet to exceed 20--pretty poor
coverage of a "leading-edge topic." (In fairness, I don't get the
version of *BYTE* that has the "International" version of "What's New,"
which does have rather more reference to products for which OS-9 is
available.) While you're at it, you might also hit up the folks at
*Dr. Dobb's Journal* about how the classy structured facilities of the
"new" BASICs as described in a recent "Swaine's Flame" are coming close
to matching what you could do with BASIC09 under OS-9/6809 back in 1981.
OS-9 may be getting out of the "68xx(x) ghetto," though. (I *don't* use
that term to denigrate those few publishers who recognize the existence
of processors other than Intel's and computers other than International
BM's; on the contrary, I respect them highly.) We'll see.
James Jones
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 11:09:18 PST
------------------------------
From: Peggy Li <ametek!peggy@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: OS9
I recently heard about OS9 and I like to know more about it, especially
in the following areas:
(1) Which machine can it run on?
(2) What is the mojor difference between OS9 and UNIX?
(3) What is its modular structure?
(4) Where can I find some good introductory articles about it?
Please respond directly to me, as I do not subscribe to this group.
Thanks in advance.
Peggy Li
e-mail: ametek!peggy@csvax.caltech.edu
address: AMETEK Computer Research Division
610 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
[ Moderator's note: 1) Any 6809 or 68000 based system. The producer of the
hardware (OR a software shop) must port OS-9 to the hardware. A port can
take as little as 48 working hours up to a couple hundred hours, depending
on complexity of the hardware, notably the MMU and peripherals.
2) Answering which ONE major difference is very difficult. It mostly depends
on what you are looking for. Whew. Lessee.
I feel that the single most important difference is the modularity of OS-9.
At the kernel level, one can easily add or remove device drivers and I/O
handlers. For example, when you boot up you can decide whether or not
you wish to have "PIPEMAN" loaded. The OS-9 kernel is also ROMable. You
can put any part or all of the kernel in ROM.
On the other side, UNIX has one of the largest international companies
behind it. There are probably 400,000+ ports of UNIX to minicomputers,
microcomputers, and Amdahls. Assuming an average of 20 users per
computer (pulling from the air here) UNIX is affecting the lives of
around 8 million users. OS-9 had been licensed to over one million
computers, of which a majority were probably process controls machines.
Who knows how many people directly use OS-9 as a development system?
OS-9 is used in CD-rom players as a controlling system; in graphics
terminals as a control system; in small to very large scales for weighing
your local chicken to weighing entire railroad cars.
Both systems are good and both systems have their uses and purposes.
Some of those uses and purposes overlap.
3) I'm not sure what you are asking about modular structure. Do you mean the
specifics of the internal structure, the flexibility, or what? Part of
your answer is above. Part will be in literature.
4) As noted in the first article of this digest, for some reason OS-9 is
(I won't say spurned; that implies more of a conspiracy.) overlooked
in the literature. As far as I know, the best literature comes from
Microware. -- JDD ]
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 15:22:33 MST
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!hpfcla!hpfloat!larry
Subject: OS-9 availability
How can I port OS-9 to a 680x0 machine?
How much do I have to pay and to whom to get enough software and
documentation to run OS-9 on an arbitrary 680x0-based machine?
Larry Fenske
{hplabs, ihnp4}!hpfcla!larry-f
(303)229-2846
[ Moderator's note: A port is relatively easy. All you need is another OS-9
system or a friendly UNIX system to cross-port it. You need to know 68000
(or 6809) assembly code, the internals concepts of operating systems, and
some hardware knowledge. The last I looked, a port-pak was about $1500 for
porting from an OS-9 system and a little more from a UNIX system. All of the
necessary documentation and software (as well as license information) is
directly available from Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa. -- JDD ]
-------------------------------------
The views expressed in OS-9 Discussions are those of the individual authors
only.
------
Moderator: John Daleske cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske daleske@cbdkc1.ATT.COM
Submissions should go to cbosgd!os9 os9@cbosgd.ATT.COM
Comments to the moderator
or to join the mailing cbosgd!os9-request os9-request@cbosgd.ATT.COM
list.
*********************
End of OS-9 Discussions
*********************