robinson@shadow.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (01/31/87)
[Will MINIX have a line-eater?]
I have giving some thought recently to the future configuration of my Amiga
(CPU, OS, mass storage, etc.). In particular, I was thinking about the
inevitable port of MINIX to the Amiga.
I, along with thousands of Amiga owners, was very excited when I first learned
of MINIX. My head was immediately filled with thoughts of having unixness
on my own computer.
But further contemplation yielded the following thoughts:
Why does everyone want to run MINIX? Because it's like UNIX, of course!
But why does everyone want to run UNIX? Hmm....
Well, there are basically three reasons to want to run UNIX (maybe four):
1. It is what we're all used to. It would mean the same environment at
home and at work.
2. UNIX is very flexible, and as a result, very powerful.
3. There are ten jillion useful programs out there that run under UNIX,
most of them public domain.
(4. Admit it. Prestige.)
People don't want MINIX because it has underlying similarities to UNIX; it
simply doesn't. In fact, it seems that underneath, MINIX more closely
resembles AmigaDOS than UNIX.
People want to run MINIX because it has the look and feel of their favorite
environment, and because UNIX software will work with it.
But on the other hand, there are some disadvantages to MINIX:
1. Almost everyone agrees that it is not adequate as distributed, which
will inevitably lead to a hodgepodge of nonstandard ports, patches and
hacks. Centralized processing will only alleviate, not eliminate, the
problem. Look at the confusion with different versions of Amiga
software, where you have centrally distributed, official releases.
2. Running MINIX will require maintaining two different environments for
the Amiga. One for the UNIX-like software that runs under MINIX, and
one for the Amiga software, which is specially designed to take
advantage of the Amiga's unique hardware.
Two sets of floppies, or two partitions on the hard drive. Either
way, you never get entirely away from AmigaDOS.
3. Software will still require porting to MINIX. MINIX is an incomplete
implementation of version 7 UNIX. Much of the software in the public
domain assumes a complete 4.? or Sys V.? implementation.
MINIX only really has three claims to unixness:
1. It comes with a number of common UNIX utilities.
2. It comes with a UNIX-like shell.
3. It supports many common UNIX system calls.
So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. If
MINIX can look like UNIX, there should be no real reason why AmigaDOS can't.
If this were done, one would have all the advantages of MINIX (except source
to the kernel), without all the disadvantages. Unix and AmigaDOS software
living and running side-by-side in the same environment.
By now, it is quite obvious that porting UNIX software to the Amiga is
often trivial. There is a constantly growing library of public domain UNIX
software available for the Amiga. This is due largely to the heroic efforts
of compilers (Manx in particular) to duplicate UNIX system calls in runtime
libraries.
Due to the heroic efforts of Matt Dillon and others, there are UNIX-like
shells that look increasingly like the real thing.
It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the
Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and
(loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication
as the explicit goal. This would be somewhat along the lines of the GNU
project, but would have a tremendous head start in that we already have an
operating system (the hard part). In fact, much of the software generated
by the GNU project would be easily ported to the Amiga.
Certainly there are enough willing and competent programmers out there to
make this work.
Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you study the logistics and heuristics of the mystics,
You will find that their minds rarely move in a line"
Fifty percent of everything is below average.
Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson
ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edumwm@eris.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: >[Will MINIX have a line-eater?] No, it doesn't come with UUCP :-). >Why does everyone want to run MINIX? Because it's like UNIX, of course! >But why does everyone want to run UNIX? Hmm.... I dunno. I don't wanna run Unix, I want AmigaDOS versions of all those neat Unix utilities. I'll post a marvelous Thompson quote about the Unix kernel when I get home where the quote is.... >But on the other hand, there are some disadvantages to MINIX: > > 1. Almost everyone agrees that it is not adequate as distributed, which > will inevitably lead to a hodgepodge of nonstandard ports, patches and > hacks. Centralized processing will only alleviate, not eliminate, the > problem. Look at the confusion with different versions of Amiga > software, where you have centrally distributed, official releases. But MINIX was WRITTEN so people could hack on it! The above is a FEATURE (or so those who hacked Unix claimed), not a bug. > 2. Running MINIX will require maintaining two different environments for > the Amiga. One for the UNIX-like software that runs under MINIX, and > one for the Amiga software, which is specially designed to take > advantage of the Amiga's unique hardware. > > Two sets of floppies, or two partitions on the hard drive. Either > way, you never get entirely away from AmigaDOS. Either that, or blow off the AmigaDOS environment. Always a problem when you go with a non-vendor-supplied os. On the other hand, given Minix, plus a PD C compiler, I would very quickly be in the state of having sources to _everything_ I use, so I could then move them to my next microtoy (whatever it is.....) with minimal pain... > 3. Software will still require porting to MINIX. MINIX is an incomplete > implementation of version 7 UNIX. Much of the software in the public > domain assumes a complete 4.? or Sys V.? implementation. The facilites missing from the v7 system call list, from the horses (Tanenbaum's) mouth: mpx is missing. This means it works better than mpx in most systems distributed, which panic'ed (read "guru'ed") machines as often as it worked. phys is missing. With no MMU, this is a moot point. plock is missing. Without swapping, everything is plock()ed for free. ptrace is missing (at which point the audience applaudes - me among them, having spent many hours chasing bugs related to ptrace & shared text....). It's only real use is for debuggers and similar creatures. Zero (or near zero) applications should use it. Something needs to replace it so you can have a debugger; but exactly what is unknown. /proc would be nice, though. On the other hand, most 4bsd/Sys[III,V] software should work as is in a v7 environment. The major changes from v7 to those at the syscall level are for tty control (v7 is inadequate), plus hooks for better control of groups of processes. Taking out the shl/process control stuff should be the hardest part. The next step is the libraries. Given a v7 library set, doing the rest to get to either sysV or 4BSD levels for the heavily-used stuff from scratch should be simple. The hardest part would be the obscure-but-incredibly-useful-if-you-need-it stuff, like dbm and mp. >MINIX only really has three claims to unixness: > > 1. It comes with a number of common UNIX utilities. > 2. It comes with a UNIX-like shell. > 3. It supports many common UNIX system calls. And that's about all that can be said for many things that are _derived_ from real Unix, too. Crock, how else do you define unix? >So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. If >MINIX can look like UNIX, there should be no real reason why AmigaDOS can't. >If this were done, one would have all the advantages of MINIX (except source >to the kernel), without all the disadvantages. Unix and AmigaDOS software >living and running side-by-side in the same environment. Ah, but you've still gotta live with the biggest kludge in AmigaDOS - not being able to kill procs from outside because of the resource tracking problem. OS/9 and Minix solve that. >It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the >Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and >(loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication >as the explicit goal. This would be somewhat along the lines of the GNU >project, but would have a tremendous head start in that we already have an >operating system (the hard part). In fact, much of the software generated >by the GNU project would be easily ported to the Amiga. The GNU software may not be useable - it's being designed for Sun/VAX class machines, and may not be useable on an Amiga. We'll have to wait and see how the first two attempted ports (GNU cron and GNU tar) come out. The first GNU software releases (emacs, scheme, and bison) don't seem to have made it, though. Basically, I agree with you; putting unixlike utilities on AmigaDOS is a very good thing to do. Also a lot more fun (but I spend my days hacking Unix kernels, and don't want to do yet more stuff like that at night). Other people may disagree about the relative pleasures of the two paths, and should be encouraged to follow their choice. If nothing else, the competition will make C/A work that much harder on improving AmigaDOS. <mike
thomps@gitpyr.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, robinson@shadow.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Robinson) writes: > Why does everyone want to run MINIX? Because it's like UNIX, of course! > People don't want MINIX because it has underlying similarities to UNIX; it > simply doesn't. In fact, it seems that underneath, MINIX more closely > resembles AmigaDOS than UNIX. > People want to run MINIX because it has the look and feel of their favorite > environment, and because UNIX software will work with it. Many people are excited about MINIX becomes with the sources and a book describing all the details of its design and development. People in this news group are always complaining about a lack of information about the guts of AmigaDos and you can't change it if you don't like it. > It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the > Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and > (loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication > as the explicit goal. This would be somewhat along the lines of the GNU > project, but would have a tremendous head start in that we already have an > operating system (the hard part). In fact, much of the software generated > by the GNU project would be easily ported to the Amiga. I question how closely it you have looked a the GNU software. It is huge. GNU emacs wouldn't even come clode to fitting on a 512K Amiga so it might not be as easy as you think. Don't forget also that the ultimate goal of the GNU project is to produce a clone of the UNIX kernel. I don't disagree with your conclusions on MINIX. I think it will be a hacker's delight but not a commercially viable operating system. -- Ken Thompson Phone : (404) 894-7089 Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/01/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: > >So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. If >MINIX can look like UNIX, there should be no real reason why AmigaDOS can't. >If this were done, one would have all the advantages of MINIX (except source >to the kernel), without all the disadvantages. Unix and AmigaDOS software >living and running side-by-side in the same environment. > >It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the >Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and >(loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication >as the explicit goal. > >Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson Q. What's the best way to turn your Amiga into a dumb terminal emulator? A. Do a port of a standard operating system. (OS/9, Unix, MINIX...) I've been watching the interest in porting first OS/9 and now MINIX to the Amiga (and ST). Either port would be fine, but you soon run into a problem that neither operating system does anything special with the machine. You get a multi-tasking CLI, zip. Now this is fine for a developement system, but developing applications under one system, then booting another to run them is a big pain. Porting standard unix tools to the Amiga may be a good alternative, but why start from scratch? Perhaps the MINIX utilities can be ported to AmigaDos with a reasonable amount of effort? Arrangements could probably be made to package an Amiga subset of Minix for no more than the whole system... The GNU people have PD "unix" source as a long range goal, but they have gotten bogged down in the hard parts, and haven't gotten to the easy stuff yet. Perhaps MINIX is an can provide a more timely source for this stuff and also get a lot of people working on PD implementations of the missing pieces... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (02/02/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: > >So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. If >MINIX can look like UNIX, there should be no real reason why AmigaDOS can't. >If this were done, one would have all the advantages of MINIX (except source >to the kernel), without all the disadvantages. Unix and AmigaDOS software >living and running side-by-side in the same environment. > >It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the >Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and >(loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication >as the explicit goal. > >Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson It certainly sounds like a good idea... just add a few features to AmigaDOS to let Unix system call emulation libraries be written. Manx has, someone pointed out, done most of that, and AmigaDOS needs a rewrite anyway. Would pipe(2) and co. be *too* hard to add? If Commodore-Amiga doesn't want to do that (and maybe even if they do), why don't they publish the AmigaDOS source, and let other interested parties (do I hear cheering from the net? :-) ) try? Perhaps I'm ignorant of some over- riding legal necessity, but I don't see what's stopping them. Somehow I don't think it's the firmware that's stopping clone-makers... P.S. Another idea for C-A marketing: The EA demo disk that comes with the machine is neat, but why don't you fill it up with some of the more useful PD utilities around? I'm sure you've noticed the average Amiga buyer is more technically oriented than, say, the average Amiga advertisement (couldn't resist!), and could cope with PopCLI, AmigaTerm, alternate text editors/shells, and/or the ASDG RRD (if they wouldn't mind). It would make the machine even more attractive without costing you anything. Hack, an implementation of life, a simple doodle program, and/or a Mandelbrot generator would probably also be appreciated by buyers trying to do something with the machine for the first time. Some of us can swap disks, but others suffer trying to bring software over the phone lines without uudecode, shar, or ARC. Maybe you could also borrow some of Fish Disk 13, and let it accompany the existing Amiga Basic demo programs. -Colin Plumb (c/o csc@watmath.UUCP) Zippy says: Is he the MAGIC INCA carrying a FROG on his shoulders?? Is the FROG his GUIDELIGHT?? It is curious that a DOG runs already on the ESCALATOR...
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (02/03/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: > >I have giving some thought recently to the future configuration of my Amiga >(CPU, OS, mass storage, etc.). In particular, I was thinking about the >inevitable port of MINIX to the Amiga. [some discussion of why we want Unix, comparing Unix with Minix ...] >MINIX only really has three claims to unixness: > > 1. It comes with a number of common UNIX utilities. > > 2. It comes with a UNIX-like shell. > > 3. It supports many common UNIX system calls. > > >So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. ...... >It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the >Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and >(loosely) coordinated effort to duplicate the environment, with duplication >as the explicit goal. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Comments? I wholeheartedly agree. Let's stop discussing (arguing) about the relative merits of things in Unix vs whatever, and simply adopt the Unix standard as a whole because it is probably the best and most widely used. That way, we have a solid starting point (standard), and can concentrate on the actual implementation. Who knows, if we do it well, maybe Commodore will adopt it as a replacement for CLI!! That would be a switch! I am all for it, it seems that there are already some projects being done as a coordinated "net" effort, would one of those volunteer to lead this? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Godfrey Lee, Cognos Incorporated, 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (02/03/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: >[Will MINIX have a line-eater?] > > >I have giving some thought recently to the future configuration of my Amiga >(CPU, OS, mass storage, etc.). In particular, I was thinking about the >inevitable port of MINIX to the Amiga. > [Lot's of stuff about pro's and cons of MINIX, some good some bad.] > > >So my idea, the point of all this, is to make AmigaDOS look like UNIX. If >MINIX can look like UNIX, there should be no real reason why AmigaDOS can't. >If this were done, one would have all the advantages of MINIX (except source >to the kernel), without all the disadvantages. Unix and AmigaDOS software >living and running side-by-side in the same environment. > I'd be quite happy with AmigaDOS alone if: The %^$$ file system wasn't soooo badly screwed up. (BTW. Is this inherent in EVERY CBM machine?) The thoughput of AmigaDOS was anywhere within reason (38k/sec is a joke). (The above figure came from some posting, nonetheless it's slow) The system implemented REAL live, honest to goodness pipes. (60% of UNIX's power is in the <tool | tool | tool ....etc> usage.) The system had a simple, fast, REAL LIVE MMU. >Due to the heroic efforts of Matt Dillon and others, there are UNIX-like >shells that look increasingly like the real thing. > Agreed, but then PeeCee DOS has these tools as well, and it ain't UNIX either. UNIX 'like' and UNIX can be anything from displaying a '%' for a prompt up to and including BSD4.3. Just no substitute for the real thing with a real MMU. >It seems to me that the only thing necessary for a UNIX environment on the >Amiga, that is even more free than MINIX, is a (loosely) organized and >................ What we really need is: A PD MMU design and the resources to hack and/or remove AmigaDOS from kickstart. Unreal? Maybe. But no more so than attemping to put the look and feel of UNIX on a system whose design, as shipped, precludes this. >Comments? >Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson > ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu Comments. -- Jeff Gortatowsky {allegra,seismo}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company <Kodak won't be responsible for the above comments, only those below>
vanam@pttesac.UUCP (02/04/87)
In article <17128@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@shadow.berkeley.edu (Mike Robinson) writes: >[Will MINIX have a line-eater?] > > >I have giving some thought recently to the future configuration of my Amiga >(CPU, OS, mass storage, etc.). In particular, I was thinking about the >inevitable port of MINIX to the Amiga. Geez, sure I'd like to see unix on my Amiga. I use unix at work and AmigaDos at home. It would be great to have the same environment in both places. One day can we come up with a standard, whatever it may be that will allow us to run *any* program? The closest thing I know to a standard is BASIC. And that is the only reason I like BASIC. I can count on it more than I can count on anything else. I consider BASIC an application though. I'm looking for some kind of an OS that is standard. EVERYBODY in the world is trying to put *their* OS out and hopes that it will become a standard. I'm getting old and tired (>40). If only I could get a standard OS -- I wouldn't care so much if it was CPM 1.4 -- just don't keep feeding me newer fancier operating systems that are different. Get me something basic that I can expand upon. As more and more people us it, set more and more standards and add more and more features -- just so long as the basics still work. Start off with read(), write(), ... I think I'm just a lonely voice in the distance, but while I've got it I'm going to voice it. ~. Marnix <Standardize shoe sizes and the rest will be a piece of cake.> -- Marnix (ain't unix!) A. van\ Ammers Work: (415) 545-8334 Home: (707) 644-9781 CEO: MAVANAMMERS:UNIX UUCP: {ihnp4|ptsfa}!pttesac!vanam CIS: 70027,70
cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (02/04/87)
In article <380@pttesac.UUCP>, vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes: > Geez, sure I'd like to see unix on my Amiga. I use unix at work > and AmigaDos at home. It would be great to have the same environment > in both places. These are two things, UNIX on the Amiga, and the "same environment." If you use Matt's shell you get the same environment without a lot of the baggage that the UNIX kernel carries along with it. I am all in favor of standard environments. > One day can we come up with a standard, whatever it may be that > will allow us to run *any* program? > The closest thing I know to a standard is BASIC. And that is the > only reason I like BASIC. I can count on it more than I can count > on anything else. I consider BASIC an application though. I'm > looking for some kind of an OS that is standard. EVERYBODY in the > world is trying to put *their* OS out and hopes that it will become > a standard. Operating Systems are always compromises. You can't standardize them because you can't standardize what you will do with a computer. You can standardize environments though, and libraries. Do you really want to "run" any program, or just be able to recompile any program and have it work on your machine? The former requires a hardware standard (the closest there is to that is an IBM PC yuck!) the latter requires a standard language and library. The only reason microcomputer BASIC's are as standard as they are, is that Microsoft wrote them or had them written. Since C as a language had such a tumultuous birth it will take it a while to become "standard" although ANSI is helping that effort considerably. > I'm getting old and tired (>40). If only I could get a standard > OS -- I wouldn't care so much if it was CPM 1.4 -- just don't keep > feeding me newer fancier operating systems that are different. I think we are really discussing user interfaces here. If you would like I can whip up a CP/M 1.4 compatible CLI for you :-) > Get me something basic that I can expand upon. As more and > more people us it, set more and more standards and add more and > more features -- just so long as the basics still work. Sort of like an ANSI standard verb set? Something that says "Typing delete at a computer console will delete files, this command will always accept wild cards that will be specifed by & and ^." But if it is customizable those CP/M users will have it set to ERA. > Start off with read(), write(), ... Apples, Oranges, and Grapefruit. The above are probably references to the C library routines that map to UNIX system calls. They are available with identical syntax on the Amiga (in Lattice's library at least) and the map to Read() and Write(). They have nothing to do with the OS at all, they are a programatic interface to a function (I/O). But they beg the question, are you asking for a) A Standard C language, and a standard Library b) A Standard user interface c) A Standard O/S Kernel > I think I'm just a lonely voice in the distance, but while > I've got it I'm going to voice it. > Marnix Good for you, as a programmer it is always interesting to hear what people want computers to evolve into. Personally, I would settle for a language that was free of restrictions like byte ordering and internal architecture. Modula 2 provides a lot of that and is one of the reasons I like it, when I need to get down and dirty with the machine I go back to C for its ease of expression. Now if we could figure out how to combine the two I would be all for it. -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
mwm@eris.UUCP (02/04/87)
In article <565@elmgate.UUCP> jdg@aurora.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes: > Unreal? Maybe. But no more so than attemping to put the look and > feel of UNIX on a system whose design, as shipped, precludes this. Don't give me that. Unix [When I say Unix without specifiers, I mean the least common subset, roughly v7] is such a primitive OS that making something run on top of another OS with the Unix user interface is almost trivial. You really only need three things: 1) The ability to run your own command processor. 2) The ability to run another command in parallel. 3) Some form of fifo between processes. Note that the second two are actually optional, if you're willing to put up with temporary files and serial runs of filters. The Software Tools group proved how easy this was by making the Software Tools package work on damn near EVERYTHING, including CP/M-80 in the scummy version. As far as I know, the only thing that they never got it to work on was MVS, and that was because they didn't want to use the shared address space normally provided for user-level multi-tasking. Actually, I fibbed. The Software Tools group doesn't really have the look of Unix, just the feel. They improved several things on the way through, since they were starting from scratch. For instance, '?' isn't a metacharacter, so can be used to ask for help (and everything recognizes it), and as an I/O redirection operator (for seperately redirecting stderr). AmigaDOS is a lot closer to being Unix-like than some of the things that run Software Tools (like Primos Version 1). In fact, that is yet another way to tackle getting a more Unix-like environment on AmigaDOS. Get a copy of the Software Tools tape, and a good FORTRAN compiler, and do the port. <mike
ntm1477@dsacg3.UUCP (03/11/87)
I compiled Umodem with (cc umodem.c -o umodem -DVER7 and with
cc umodem.c -o umodem -DSYS3) and i can't upload. can you give me
some hints. (I can download ok).
Thank you
Jared A McNeal
Columbus, ohio