AB084@DK0RRZK0.BITNET (12/03/87)
A few weeks ago I sent a question to the net concerning OS/9.
As far as I could see there was no response to it at all. (Some-
times we seem to miss digests here on BitNet.)
I must admit that the way I put the question didn't make it look
very serious. I will try again now, explaining why I'd like
to initiate a quite general discussion about operating systems
for the ST.
With the ST and in particular with the Mega, Atari succeeds in
losing the toy image (gradually). Quite a few STs are used under
sort of professional/commercial conditions. But for such purposes
one would like to run a more reliable OS on the ST. TOS/GEMDOS,
at least in their present state, seem unacceptable.
I'd like to list a couple of points I find important and would ex-
pect from a reasonable OS. I invite everyone to comment on it,
criticise, support, complete it. And I would appreciate people letting
us know which OS's do meet the criteria and which don't. Please let us
make use of your experience.
1. A good OS should have very few (favorably no) bugs. It should
do what the documentation says, be predictable. No surprises
wanted.
2. It should be well documented and function in an intelligible way.
It should have a clear concept, e.g. of files, processes, etc.
3. It should be stable. This means it runs for days or even weeks
without crashing and it does so even if it is not left alone, if
there is somebody working all the time and if this someone makes
mistakes.
4. There should be good software available for it or at least become
avalilable in the near future. Some kind of compatibility with a
"standard" such as UNIX would be nice. It would make porting easy.
5. It should provide (or be integrated with) a modern developing
system. Editor, compilers, linker, debugger, make, and so on.
All powerful, fast, and easy to use. Compilers should of course
generate quick code.
6. Multitasking is a must.
7. Real time capabilities might be useful.
Nice but not absolutely neccessary would be:
8. A TOS/GEM emulator. Don't want to lose all the games. And the few
excellent programs (like gulam or uniterm).
Which candidates do I see? Well, there are OS/9 and RTOS-UH. MINIX is
being ported and there are even rumours about UNIX. I've read very
positive articles about EUMEL (which I have never used or seen at work)
in German magazines. There may be more. Hope we'll know soon.
I hope this will be the start of an interesting and useful discussion.
Michael Eibl ab084@dk0rrzk0.bitnet
Theoretical Physics Institute
University of Cologne
D-5000 Koeln 41
West Germanywheels@mks.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <8712030211.AA03408@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, AB084@DK0RRZK0.BITNET writes: > Which candidates do I see? Well, there are OS/9 and RTOS-UH. MINIX is > being ported and there are even rumours about UNIX. I've read very > positive articles about EUMEL (which I have never used or seen at work) > in German magazines. There may be more. Hope we'll know soon. > > I hope this will be the start of an interesting and useful discussion. > > > Michael Eibl ab084@dk0rrzk0.bitnet In the Unix line of things, the OS called IDRIS has been ported to the ST. I've not seen it, so I don't know how good the port is. As far as I can gather, IDRIS is a Unix look-alike, based on System V, written by Whitesmith's. My Unix friends don't think it's as good as other Unix'es, but it sounds like a good start to me. I've heard that it is being used as a platform for several large programs, but I can't recall what they were. I thought the IDRIS prices were a little high, given the price of the computer and the "power without the price" philosophy of it. I think the full system, with compiler, was over $800. Has anyone on the net used ST IDRIS? Can anyone tell us more about EUMEL? I've never heard of it. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 43 Bridgeport Rd. E. BIX: mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2J4 CompuServe: 73260,1043
markb@bucc2.UUCP (12/05/87)
> Which candidates do I see? Well, there are OS/9 and RTOS-UH. MINIX is > being ported and there are even rumours about UNIX. I've read very > positive articles about EUMEL (which I have never used or seen at work) > in German magazines. There may be more. Hope we'll know soon. > I hope this will be the start of an interesting and useful discussion. I remember reading a Xenix ad for the ST in a back issue of STart magazine about a year ago, but I haven't seen any advertisments since then. Xenix would be a good OS for the ST. With a good implementation, it should provide multitasking, Unix capability, reliability, etc. I used to work at a Junior College, and we had a Tandy 6000 (with a 68000) that ran Xenix. I was surprised at how much I liked it. The implementation of Xenix itself on that system was enough to turn a Trash-80 into a serious computer. If anyone knows anything more about this Xenix, then I would really like to hear more about it. I haven't been able to find that ad... By the way, what are the major differences between Unix and Xenix? After working with both OS's quite a bit, I really haven't seen any big differences.
ftw@datacube.UUCP (12/07/87)
AB084@DK0RRZK0.BITNET.UUCP writes: <first few paragraphs deleted> > 1. A good OS should have very few (favorably no) bugs. It should > do what the documentation says, be predictable. No surprises > wanted. Agreed. The most important part is doing what the documentation says. > 2. It should be well documented and function in an intelligible way. > It should have a clear concept, e.g. of files, processes, etc. No arguments here either. > 3. It should be stable. This means it runs for days or even weeks > without crashing and it does so even if it is not left alone, if > there is somebody working all the time and if this someone makes > mistakes. Your caveat is difficult to achieve. The ST is an unmapped system; the only memory protection is for the lower part of the address space. If the OS has code or data elsewhere, it is subject to corruption by an errant or malicious user program. > 4. There should be good software available for it or at least become > avalilable in the near future. Some kind of compatibility with a > "standard" such as UNIX would be nice. It would make porting easy. > 5. It should provide (or be integrated with) a modern developing > system. Editor, compilers, linker, debugger, make, and so on. > All powerful, fast, and easy to use. Compilers should of course > generate quick code. > 6. Multitasking is a must. > 7. Real time capabilities might be useful. No arguemnts on any of these points. > Nice but not absolutely neccessary would be: > 8. A TOS/GEM emulator. Don't want to lose all the games. And the few > excellent programs (like gulam or uniterm). "emulating" TOS, GEM, et. al. would make the "real" OS kinda slow. I would rather have both OS's on the same disk, with an option to boot either one at startup time. Ability to read files on the other partition would be nice, though. > Which candidates do I see? Well, there are OS/9 and RTOS-UH. MINIX is > being ported and there are even rumours about UNIX. I've read very > positive articles about EUMEL (which I have never used or seen at work) > in German magazines. There may be more. Hope we'll know soon. What is EUMEL? RTOS-UH? I know of OS-9; I use it at work. I have Idris on my ST at home. I see that Microware is advertising OS-9 availability for the ST. Both OS-9 and Idris offer solutions to your above wishes, although they go about it slightly differently. You would find it easier to port existing code to an Idris than to OS-9 (my opinion), but its a great deal easier to customize OS-9 to your specific needs. Point is that tools exist that address most of your needs. > I hope this will be the start of an interesting and useful discussion. > Michael Eibl ab084@dk0rrzk0.bitnet > Theoretical Physics Institute > University of Cologne > D-5000 Koeln 41 > West Germany Farrell T. Woods Datacube Inc. Systems / Software Group 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960 VOICE: 617-535-6644; FAX: (617) 535-5643; TWX: (710) 347-0125 INTERNET: ftw@datacube.COM UUCP: {rutgers, ihnp4, mirror}!datacube!ftw
rms@frog.UUCP (Bob Santy) (12/07/87)
In article <8712030211.AA03408@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, AB084@DK0RRZK0.BITNET writes: > 1. A good OS should have very few (favorably no) bugs. It should > do what the documentation says, be predictable. No surprises > wanted. The ST version of OS9 has some problems in device drivers that should be fixed soon. The RS232 port driver for /T1 can crash the system. I have managed to run with use of /T1 without incident, but others have much trouble. > 2. It should be well documented and function in an intelligible way. > It should have a clear concept, e.g. of files, processes, etc. The references for the "professional" version of ST-OS9 are complete and correct as far as I know. OS9 is well known for a very "robust" file system. > 3. It should be stable. This means it runs for days or even weeks > without crashing and it does so even if it is not left alone, if > there is somebody working all the time and if this someone makes > mistakes. See comments in 1. > 4. There should be good software available for it or at least become > avalilable in the near future. Some kind of compatibility with a > "standard" such as UNIX would be nice. It would make porting easy. Again, the "professional" version has a fine C compiler that is reasonably UNIX compatible. > 5. It should provide (or be integrated with) a modern developing > system. Editor, compilers, linker, debugger, make, and so on. > All powerful, fast, and easy to use. Compilers should of course > generate quick code. See comments on 4. The "professional" version has all plus two editors: Emacs and a line editor "ed". > 6. Multitasking is a must. OS9 is multitasking. > 7. Real time capabilities might be useful. OS9 is real time. > Nice but not absolutely neccessary would be: > > 8. A TOS/GEM emulator. Don't want to lose all the games. And the few > excellent programs (like gulam or uniterm). Someone will probably come up with an emulator, but there may be some issues with the programs using resources improperly for OS9 to cope. > Bob Santy