cbosgd@os9.uucp (Moderator) (08/28/86)
OS-9 Discussions, Volume 2 Number 1
Thursday, August 28th 1986
Today's Topics:
Summary of OS-9
Re: OS-9/6809 info request
OS-9/6809 info request
Micro Emacs for OS9?
Re: OS-9 as an instructional tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Daleske (moderator)
Date: Thursday, August 28th 1986
Subject: Summary of OS-9
> How about a summary of OS9 being posted to the group? As pointed out, the
> media haven't paid much attention to it, and so it's rather hard to get any
> information. I for one would like to know more.
>
> Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp
----
In a vein of humor, I must quote from one version of the OS-9 68K Operating
System Users Manual:
"unix - an operating system similar to OS-9 but with less functionality and
special features designed to soak up excess memory, disk space, and CPU time
on large, costly computers."
History of Design
Actually, OS-9 is a derivative system from UNIX ancestry in the sense that
UNIX and other systems came before OS-9 and laid a ground work of concepts
which were in opposition to the batch giants (read IBM OS) and security
paranoids (read Multics). UNIX evolved for years and laid groundwork.
OS-9 was designed with 80's (read state of the art) concepts included in
the base of the design, most notably memory modules which aids shared
library features.
Users
Who uses OS-9? From what I understand there are well over one MILLION
machines running OS-9. I believe the figures were something like 300,000+
UNIX machines in use as of last year. WHERE ARE THESE OS-9 MACHINES!!?
A number are single-user systems such as the CoCo. A lot are in dedicated
process controls applications. Some are multi-user systems. There are
probably more user knowingly using UNIX than users knowingly using OS-9.
(In other words, many UNIX systems have 30-50 (or 300) users on-line. This
would give more users on UNIX systems (30 x 300,000 average?) who KNOW they
are using UNIX. OS-9 might be hidden from the end user.)
Multi-tasking and Multi-user
OS-9 is a multiuser and multitasking operating system. It is often used as
a single-user/multitasking system on small computers. It is also used as a
multi-user/multitasking system on larger systems. If you are familiar with
the concepts behind UNIX you are familiar with much of OS-9. The implemen-
tation is somewhat different, however. A much higher percentage of the OS-9
system kernel are written in very tightly coded assembly language. So the
kernel is not quite as portable. OS-9 is currently available for 6809 and
680xx based machines. In this sense then, UNIX is more broadly available
as it has been ported to nearly every current selling mini-computer and is
available on Amdahl mainframes and the Cray-2! OS-9 is available on one of
the smallest, least-expensive systems, the Radio Shack CoCo. OS-9 runs on
multitasking 68020 "super-micros" which are in the same class as many minis.
Small Systems Resources
Since OS-9 requires fewer resources to run it can fit on machines where the
current implementations of UNIX would have difficulty. My OS-9 68K system
at home has 256K of RAM and two eight-inch floppies (rapidly turning
ancient!). It runs fine with only 64K of RAM if need be. A company has
been working on a port of OS-9 68K for the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga.
The ST version should very soon be available. I doubt we will see a UNIX
port for either machine.
Process Controls
One area where OS-9 has excelled over UNIX is in the dedicated processor
control area. Indeed, OS-9 has been chosen as the standard system for the
dedicated processor controlling CD-ROM disk hardware. Yes, you don't "see"
it but you sure would be using it. UNIX is heavily disk-based and requires
a disk to run. OS-9 can be entirely based in ROM with NO DISK needed!
I was very suprised to find that OS-9 responds to interupts so quickly! An
8MHz 68000 OS-9 system can respond in about 70 microseconds. I compared that
to a 10MHz 68010 UNIX (4.2 BSD) system which responded in 390 microseconds.
Memory Modules
A unique feature of OS-9 is its support of modular software techniques based
on memory modules. The use of memory modules allows much more efficient use
of available disk and memory. This makes the system run faster than those
using other techniques. Program ("text") modules can be shared by several
tasks at the same time. (UNIX usually shares text modules also. Some systems
don't.) One of the biggest advantages of memory modules is that functions
frequently used by many different programs can share common library modules.
- shared libraries -
The best example of shared library usage is the C standard I/O library!
On (most) UNIX systems when you include <stdio.h> and compile you will have
the standard I/O library compile IN with your code. The standard demo:
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("Hello world!\n");
}
will often compile to 12 to 16 K on various UNIX systems. On my OS-9 68k
system it compile (IF I remember correctly!) to about 1K.
Where is the overhead and difference on the two systems? On OS-9 the overhead
is mainly in the essential support code to interface with the operating system.
The OS-9 system would have the CIO memory module (about 8K) loaded one time.
ALL programs on the machine which use CIO would share that one module. Calls
to the shared library are by way of TRAPs (on the 68000) which is equivalent
to the overhead of a system call. This is a little more overhead than calling
a compiled-in function. For those programs which wish the library can be
compiled in. Many of the utilities use the CIO module and are thus quite
small. My floppy based system can load them at about 20K bytes per second.
To load a 4K utility would take .2 seconds. The similar UNIX utility is about
22K. Many hard disk systems would take about the same time to load the UNIX
version as my floppy system loads the OS-9 version!
In the UNIX example the standard library is included. (Not necessarily ALL
of the library, as the C compiler is smart enough to only include the ".o"
"modules" (different meaning for module here) which are needed.) Each program
using the library would have that code included. Yes, where the program is
a significant percentage of the code (say a 100K program) 10K (10%) doesn't
seem to be much overhead. When the program is small (5K) then 10K (66%) of
the program size for the library seems extreme.
The math library is another good example of shared library usage. If your
machines have the option for math hardware, then you load the appropriate
library module. One module to do the math functions in software and the
other module for the machines which have the math hardware. Your original
programs which use the math library do NOT have to be recompiled!
UNIX System V release 3 is supposed to be coming out with shared library
support. I'm not sure how much applies with it.
Operating Systems have hundreds of features. If you have further questions
relating to how OS-9 handles some particular feature set, ask and let's
get the discussion going. (Read that I'm running out of steam today.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fluke!mcrware!jejones (James Jones)
Date: 25 Aug 1986 1137-CDT (Monday)
Subject: Re: OS-9/6809 info request
I've tried to mail a reply to the fellow in Oslo directly, and also to ship
it to <mike at the info-68k mailing list to forward, neither time with any
luck. If you know of a way to get to oslo-vax.uio.edu, please let me know;
if portions of the following are worth posting to mod.os.os9, please feel
free to do so.
James Jones
------------------------------
To: fluke!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!oslo-vax.uio.edu!hans
Subject: OS-9/6809 info request
Dear Mr. ]lien,
I fear that this reply to your message will have less information than the
first, because I can't get to a file I have on another machine that has the
net address of some OS-9 users in Finland, but I'll do the best I can...
I'd never heard of the Braillex-PC before. I'm glad to hear that there is
such a computer. I've been using OS-9/6809 for some time (though I've
recently taken to doing some consulting work at the present location on
OS-9/68000). Yes, there is a lot of public domain software available!
The main sources of such software are
1. The CompuServe OS-9 SIG download area--CompuServe is a dialup
service, or "information utility" as they probably like to call
it. I've seen messages posted to it by people from France, so
I would think that it is accessible from Europe. The SIG is also
a very good source of people who know OS-9 very well indeed, and
who can answer pretty nearly any OS-9-related question. (I can't
help you with Stylograph, but there are lots of Stylograph users
on the SIG who could.)
2. The OS-9 User Group software library. This software is available,
usually both in executable and source form, from the OS-9 User
Group for a minimal fee (covering the cost of the disks). You
should seriously consider joining the OS-9 User Group. It's $25 US
per year membership fee, which gets you the monthly newsletter,
MOTD, and the "library disk 0" which has various programs on it,
including a modem program and a program for documenting submissions
to the User Group software library. The address is
OS-9 User Group, Attn: Membership
9743 University Avenue
Suite 330
Des Moines IA 50322
USA
(to get to various officers and other people, change "Membership"
to "President," "Librarian," "MOTD Editor," etc.)
I shouldn't even by inference denigrate the Delphi COCO SIG or the BIX
OS-9 SIG--I understand that there's lots of good info flying about on
them--but as I've not been on them, I can't say what they have in the
way of PD software.
You should also read net.micro.6809 and mod.os.os9, if you have access
to news, notes, or any of the newsreading programs that are out there.
mod.os.os9 has finally found a moderator, so I hope that it will become
a very active group.
Finally, you shouldn't pass the existing source newsgroups by--they have
a large amount of software that is convertible to run under OS-9. (This
is not much help if you don't have a C compiler, though...sigh.)
Magazines that are worth your consideration are *68 Micro Journal*
(1 year $24.50, 2 years $42.50, 3 years $64.50, plus $12.00/year for
surface or $48.00/year airmail delivery overseas), address:
68 Micro Journal
CPI
Computer Publishing Center
5900 Cassanda Smith Road, P.O. Box 849
Hixson TN 37343
USA
and *The RAINBOW* (despite its Color Computer orientation, it is about
the only widespread magazine in English that has regular OS-9 informa-
tion, and with the CoCo III announcement, they'll be doing more on
Level Two software) ($31/year in the US, $68/year overseas surface
mail, $103/year airmail), address:
*The RAINBOW*
P.O. Box 385
Prospect KY 40059
USA
Arf--I bet what I see as dollar signs have turned into other "national
characters." The glyphs are intended to represent units of US dollars.
Good luck! --James Jones
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 15:41:46 edt
From: ihnp4!chinet!megabyte
Subject: Micro Emacs for OS9?
What is the statusof porting micro emacs over to os9? The last I saw,
Bob Larson had ported an early, maybe around 3.1, version to OSK on
his QT, and there was support for the CoCo with the standard 32x16
screen along with his source code.
Does anyone have any news on A) Porting a newer veresion, or B) A port
for Tandy Color Computer with the PBJ Word-Pak?
As our moderator has said, send all replies to me directly. If there is
enough interest, I will summarise and send to the moderator.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 06:38:09 edt
From: <watmath!utzoo!henry>
Subject: Re: OS-9 as an instructional tool
> ... (How many other OSs would it be
> reasonable to ask students to write a file manager or device driver for?
> Certainly not Unix, which has benefitted so from university exposure--
> just try to get a university computer center to let students look at
> source!
C'mon now, keep the comparisons fair. University computer centers are
notorious for being run by empty-headed bozos. Any computer science
department willing to take the trouble should be able to get an educational
licence for Unix that will give it full access to the sources. It doesn't
even cost much. Note that this gives you *all* sources -- try to get the
equivalent for OS-9! (This isn't entirely a trivial argument, because one
can make a case that students should learn to read such things before they
start trying to write them.)
> With OS-9's reasonable interface design, one would need only
> some sample listings of the kind readily available in Dibble & Puckett.)
I strongly suspect one could get students writing device drivers and such
for Unix with no problem given similar reference material, say a copy
of Bach's book.
Mind you, I do agree that OS-9 is better modularized and simpler to
experiment with, but the claim that you can get at OS-9 and you can't get
at Unix is simply incorrect.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
-------------------------------------
To join this group or have your thoughts in the next issue, please
send electronic mail to John Daleske at the following address;
cbosgd!os9
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 get on the mailing cbosgd!os9-request os9-request@cbosgd.ATT.COM
list.
*********************
End of OS-9 Discussions
*********************