gert@nikhefh.UUCP (Gert Poletiek) (10/05/87)
Can anyone tell me what the status of Apple UNIX is?
I would very much like to run it instead of the Finder.
Also, if it is available: HOW TO GET IT?
Gert Poletiek
NIKHEF-H, Dutch National Institute for Nuclear and High Energy Physics
Kruislaan 409, P.O.Box 41882, 1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
UUCP: {decvax,cernvax,unido,seismo}!mcvax!nikhefh!gert
bitnet: nikhefh!gert@mcvax.bitnet, U00025@hasara5.bitnetjww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (10/06/87)
A/UX requires a Mac II, 2 Mb (4 Mb preferred), and at least
40 Mb of disk space (only Quantum 80Mb are supported right now).
Latest word I heard was December ship date is pretty firm.
Might even be earlier.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
So. California: where the ground does the Rocking 'N Rolling for youroot@sbcs (Root) (10/07/87)
Perhaps this is heresy, by has anyone out there thought of plunking Sun's version of Unix onto the MAC-II? Since I've heard that Sun now has a "University Source" tape, and given that all one would have to do is write 68851 MMU code + a couple of device drivers, such a thing is firmly within the realm of possibility. I generally have a lot more respect for Sun's version of Unix than Unisoft Unix (A/UX folks?). With Sun's Unix, you would automatically pick up access to their applications code base, have really good network + NFS code, NeWS/X ports, good compiler technology, etc. Anyways, I would like to hear what people think. If you're wildly enthusiastic and would like to help out, I would be very interested in hearing from you! Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) (10/09/87)
root@sbcs (Root) writes:
[Re: running Sun OS on a Mac II]..., and given that all one would
have to do is write 68851 MMU code + a couple of device drivers,
such a thing is firmly within the realm of possibility.
have a lot more respect for Sun's version of Unix than Unisoft
Rick Spanbauer
SUNY/Stony Brook
You're a funny guy. You would have to rewrite the memory management
stuff completely (not a fun time, since Sun has a custom MMU that
doesn't look much like a 68851), not to mention all of the device
drivers. In other words, it would be as easy as doing your own port
of, say, System V. You'd also loose (a) streams, (b) the toolbox, (c)
more solid networking code (although Sun 3.4 looks better than their
previous efforts), ...
It's a nice idea, but I'm much more interested in porting NeWS first.
--
Clayton M. Elwell
The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
(614) 292-6546 UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!elwell
ARPA: elwell@ohio-state.arpa (not working well right now)lalonde@nicmad.UUCP (John Lalonde) (10/10/87)
>>> have a lot more respect for Sun's version of Unix than Unisoft >>of, say, System V. You'd also loose (a) streams, (b) the toolbox, (c) >>more solid networking code (although Sun 3.4 looks better than their >>previous efforts), ... You're a funny guy if you think that Unisoft's networking code is more 'solid' than Sun's code. I know of many OEMs who have not been thrilled with Unisoft's code. I say the Mac toolbox access from AUX will not pan out like everybody seems to think it will. Access to the toolbox is single threaded. Why would anyone want a single threaded graphics environment on top of a multitasking kernel? Why not just use X or NeWS if you are running A/UX? Have you seen the number of toolbox managers that don't work (yet) under A/UX? A Sys V File System on top of a I/O subsystem like in the Mac II will be SLOW. Unisoft uses *Sun's* Virtual File System design to support NFS but retains the standard Sys V file system. At least Unisoft put in some BSD features (sockets, select) and some of *Sun's* efforts (NFS, Virtual File System). But A/UX is not BSD. Period. -- John LaLonde Systems Engineering Group Nicolet Instrument Corporation uucp: {ihnp4,seismo,decvax,harvard}!uwvax!nicmad!lalonde
ricks@well.UUCP (Rick Spanbauer) (10/11/87)
In article <381@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) writes: > > You're a funny guy. You would have to rewrite the memory management > stuff completely (not a fun time, since Sun has a custom MMU that > doesn't look much like a 68851), not to mention all of the device > drivers. In other words, it would be as easy as doing your own port > of, say, System V. You'd also loose (a) streams, (b) the toolbox, (c) > more solid networking code (although Sun 3.4 looks better than their > previous efforts), ... A sense of humour sometimes helps when dealing with the ``cards'' you meet in our industry. Anyways, I fail to see why doing a full port of SysV is the same amount of effort as recutting the *machine dependent* part of the BSD MMU code, scsi driver, NuBus management, etc. The idea is that since Sun is already on a 68020 platform, one doesn't have to spend time recompiling + porting all the applications, which is where the bulk of Unix source code is (albeit, the most portable part). As for the issue of networking, you gotta be really strange if you think SysV networking is in anything resembling a useable state. I've a guy in our EE department with ~100 3B series machines that would gladly trade his machines for Sun iron if he had the chance - let's just say that the sole network application supplied with the machines ("sorta" ftp) just doesn't meet their needs. > > It's a nice idea, but I'm much more interested in porting NeWS first. > It's been done for both the MAC/II under A/UX, and, I think for the MAC/II under the "old" OS. > -- > Clayton M. Elwell > The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) (10/12/87)
lalonde@nicmad.UUCP (John Lalonde) writes:
You're a funny guy if you think that Unisoft's networking code is
more 'solid' than Sun's code. I know of many OEMs who have not
been thrilled with Unisoft's code.
Hmm. Have you actually USED A/UX? Have you helped Apple test out the
A/UX network code? The A/UX network code is based on the Sun and 4.3
code (or was last I checked). So far it's the first machine that
doesn't run vanilla 4.3 I've seen in person that runs 'bind' and
the resolver code correctly, not to mention subnetting, which Sun
did wrong for quite some time. Repeat after me: A/UX != Uniplus.
This is not speculation, folks. We had one of the first EtherTalk
boards out of Cupertino, and we've been pounding on A/UX pretty hard
from a networking standpoint.
I say the Mac toolbox access from AUX will not pan out like
everybody seems to think it will. Access to the toolbox is single
threaded. Why would anyone want a single threaded graphics
environment on top of a multitasking kernel? Why not just use X or
NeWS if you are running A/UX? Have you seen the number of toolbox
managers that don't work (yet) under A/UX?
Nothing says it will *stay* single-threaded. If I were Apple, I'd be
working real hard with the Mac OS folks to come up with a Layer
Manager that would work under A/Ux or Multifinder. Aside from that, X
runs on it already, and NeWS would be a natural, but I'd wait for
Sun's next release (the one with the X11 server built in). Pardon my
annoyance, but complaints based on what you've heard about a product
that hasn't even been !@$$#! released seems to me to be a little
unreasonable. Sometimes you guess wrong, after all.
A Sys V File System on top of a I/O subsystem like in the Mac II
will be SLOW. Unisoft uses *Sun's* Virtual File System design to
support NFS but retains the standard Sys V file system.
At least Unisoft put in some BSD features (sockets, select) and
some of *Sun's* efforts (NFS, Virtual File System). But A/UX is
not BSD. Period.
Neither is it Uniplus. Period. Neither is Sun OS BSD. Period.
--
John LaLonde
Systems Engineering Group
Nicolet Instrument Corporation
uucp: {ihnp4,seismo,decvax,harvard}!uwvax!nicmad!lalonde
I like A/UX, but you can't even buy it yet. OSU CIS chose the Sun 3/50
over Mac IIs for a major (250+ unit) order in part because the Mac II
with A/UX wasn't ready yet. We were still impressed as <expletive
deleted> with what Apple had out as a beta.
I stand by my position.
--
Clayton M. Elwell
The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
(614) 292-6546 UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!elwell
ARPA: elwell@ohio-state.arpa (not working well right now)breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) (10/13/87)
In article <2060@nicmad.UUCP>, lalonde@nicmad.UUCP (John Lalonde) writes: > A Sys V File System on top of a I/O subsystem like in the Mac II will be SLOW. I'm not certain but you seem to be saying that A/UX will be SLOW. At least that its file system will be slow. Well, I've heard that that's just not the case. Apple has gone to considerable trouble to beef up the file system performance. All I've got to go on is rumors, but it sounds like their system should *fly*. In addition, the BSD file system doesn't really seem to be all it's cracked up to be. It seems to be somewhat over-engineered. So just because A/UX is using the System V file system doesn't mean it'll be that slow. -- Breck Beatie uunet!aimt!breck
springer@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Kent Springer) (10/14/87)
Have there been any rumors about pricing for a/ux? My local dealers don't have ship dates or pricing info. Is the MMU bundled with the software? ..kent springer