m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) (04/11/89)
A thought on this whole idea of a UNIX type operating system for the
Apple IIs. First off, I'm going to state that which is obvious to some of
you and absolutly forigen to some others of you. We all ready have a UNIX
like operating system. Ok, not quite but from the point of the call
interface it's close enough for our comparason. Yes, it's seriously
lacking in memory management, job management, and other vital items. What
I'm saying, is that we don't want to rebuild the OPERATING SYSTEM, ProDOS
will do fine as a foundation. We don't need to do it so that it's
incompatable. What most of the people here are looking for is a SHELL
that will allow them to do the multitasking. I think that for the time
being, unless we do get a Hertzfield for the gs, we're going to have to
make some comprimises. The first one is that we may not get a system that
can run all of our old software as we'd like it to. What we may have to
do for to establish this kind of thing is create a C Shell type interface
(Apple C Shell? ASH?) that uses new utilites, all written to adhere to
the new rules. This is what Don Elton did for ECP. Before anyone puts me
on the spit, I know this isn't great, but I think that some people may
need to readjust their thinking on some of this.
Please note, at no time did I say it's impossible! Let's face it,
"Impossible" is the word that built a lot of companies..
Just by two bits worth.
<< MCT >>
BCS Apple/Connection (617) 893-5681 [MCT]
AppleLinkPE M Tiernan
GEnie M.Tiernan
obsolete!pro-angmar!m.tiernan@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
obsolete!pro-angmar!m.tiernan@bu-it.bu.edu
pro-angmar!m.tiernan@obsolete.uucp
m.tiernan@pro-angmar.cts.comcbdougla@uokmax.UUCP (Collin Broadrick Douglas) (04/13/89)
You have a very good point. I would be perfectly willing to accept all the
constraints of your idea of a multitasking shell. I simply want to multitask
Daemon is a great start. I may very well be an answer to a problem that
has come up (programming wise). MY major goal is to be able to run a
terminal program while running Appleworks. If I had more experience with
'real' programming, I would be able to help more. I guess it's time to
start reading that assembly book...
Collinlmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow) (04/13/89)
In article <8904111703.AA11699@obsolete.UUCP> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes: > > We all ready have a UNIX > like operating system. Ok, not quite but from the point of the call > interface it's close enough for our comparason. If you sit back and take a look at the GS toolbox and operating system, you start to wonder just how many software poeple at Apple were thinking multi-tasking computer....come on, now...The GS is, if anything, interrupt-bound. > What most of the people here are looking for is a SHELL > that will allow them to do the multitasking. > ...we may not get a system that > can run all of our old software as we'd like it to. What we may have to > do for to establish this kind of thing is create a C Shell type interface > (Apple C Shell? ASH?) that uses new utilites, all written to adhere to > the new rules. How about this...a shell which multi-tasks, based on the (argv,argc) call procedure (probably the easiest way I can think of to call a procedure, and, for kicks, it provides a simple interface with MANY C routines). To boot, if someone out there can tell me how to tell the difference between executables written for different shells, (auxtype?) you could add in a feature which, when handed an executable from a different shell, passed the correct values to the executable, thereby allowing compatability with different executables... ><< MCT >> -- Les Barstow LMB7421@RITVAX.BITNET ...rutgers!rochester!ritcv!ultb!lmb7421.UUCP "I know you think you know what you thought I said, but you don't realize that what you thought I said was not what I meant"
mikes@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Michael Steele) (04/14/89)
In article <8904111703.AA11699@obsolete.UUCP> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes: > ... .... [stuff deleted] Yes, it's seriously > lacking in memory management, job management, and other vital items. What > I'm saying, is that we don't want to rebuild the OPERATING SYSTEM, ProDOS > will do fine as a foundation. We don't need to do it so that it's > incompatable. What most of the people here are looking for is a SHELL > that will allow them to do the multitasking. I think that for the time > EXACTLY!!!! What WE need to do is port something like MINIX to the Apple II using PRODOS as the filing system. I suggest we start the project on the GS in order to create a running package by the end of the summer. Then once the algorithm is set we can port it to the II+/e/c etc. All this disscussion about a MMU is useless. The Memory Manager Toolbox will be plenty for single user multitasking. You HAVE to have a hardware MMU only when you want to run multiuser to prevent one user from tromping on others. In a single user environment if memory get's trampled...it just means you can't multitask THAT particular application and you have to reboot. IInix ( the name for Apple UNIX ) won't be able to multitask EVERYTHING at first, we may have to add patches to get weird programs like games to work and some may never work. Such are the problems of developing your own OS. But the important thing is to not give up on the project just because we don't have and MMU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Please note, at no time did I say it's impossible! Let's face it, > "Impossible" is the word that built a lot of companies.. Amen!!!! This may be a difficult project but it is by no means impossible! Michael Steele mikes@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu mikes@ncsuctix.ncsuvx.ncsu.edu netoprms@ncsuvm.bitnet -- Michael Steele mikes@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu mikes@ncsuctix.ncsuvx.ncsu.edu netoprms@ncsuvm.bitnet