es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/01/91)
Never mind my earlier request for an Amiga version of MINIX. I just read the post giving info on the various version. It doesn't support a HD (without additional support), it won't work with anything but a 68000/68010 so I can't use it anyway, and to top it all off they can't even remember that the drive size is 880K, not 720K! 1/2 8) And they wanted me to pay $169 for THIS? They should at least have multiple price tiers depending on quality of the version! -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
lkelly@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Kelly) (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun1.162833.18719@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > Never mind my earlier request for an Amiga version of >MINIX. I just read the post giving info on the various version. >It doesn't support a HD (without additional support), it won't >work with anything but a 68000/68010 so I can't use it anyway, >and to top it all off they can't even remember that the drive >size is 880K, not 720K! 1/2 8) > > And they wanted me to pay $169 for THIS? They should at >least have multiple price tiers depending on quality of the >version! > -- Ethan > >Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, >Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, >I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, >How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin I agree completely! Amiga Minix is a joke. No A3000 support, NO HD support, and 720k drive size?? It's a shame, because the Amiga is probably the most compatible platform for unix. I've heard that there is no hard drive support because of the various types of manufacturers. This is not a valid reason not to provide support, as Readysoft provides drivers for their Amax product, and they work fine. I am sysadmin on a couple of unix based systems, and would have very much like to have a small version on my own system, unfortunetely, the current problems with Amiga Minix are too large to ignore. I can not justify spending $169 for basically a demo, although I would definetely purchase it if these basic problems were corrected. -Larry (lkelly@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
guineau@star.enet.dec.com (06/03/91)
Amiga Minix does support hard disks and 680x0 processors (not the Prentice Hall 1.5.10 version, though) and it works great! The 720K drive size is for compatibility reasons. Talk to Steve Reiz. I have been beta testing a version of Amiga Minix with all these features. I have an A2500/30 with 100MB of hard disk dedicated to Minix. Minix boots directly off the hard drive from AmigaDOS. (sorry for spilling the beans Steve, I just can't bear to see people bashing Amiga Minix) -- W. John Guineau grep meaning life | more VMS Development Digital Equipment Corporation guineau@star.enet.dec.com
phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) (06/03/91)
Hard drive support is nearly here, the beta test versions I've
grabbed from vs.nl.etc... seem fairly stable.
However I do agree that the monthly posting is VERY misleading. It claims
that every version of MINIX _except_ AmigaMINIX supports multiple users
through the serial port, zmodem, terminal program support, etc. This should be
changed since it is very likely to put potential users of AmigaMINIX off
buying it.
*****************************************************************************
* Stuart Millington * "A Mind Is A Terrible Thing, Remember *
* UUCP:...!mcsun!ukc!warwick!phupp * That." - David Bryan, Bon Jovi *
* JANET:phupp@uk.ac.warwick.cu *****************************************
* ? :phupp%warwick.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk *
*****************************************************************************es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/03/91)
In article <~32_6$#@warwick.ac.uk> phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes: > > Hard drive support is nearly here, the beta test versions I've >grabbed from vs.nl.etc... seem fairly stable. > However I do agree that the monthly posting is VERY misleading. It claims >that every version of MINIX _except_ AmigaMINIX supports multiple users >through the serial port, zmodem, terminal program support, etc. This should be >changed since it is very likely to put potential users of AmigaMINIX off >buying it. > I've been told repeatedly by people that MINIX can be distributed for educational purposes. My use is an educational purpose: I'm taking a class on OS that is based around MINIX and Tanenbaum's book. So does this mean that someone who has AmigaMINIX is allowed to copy it for me? BTW, this is coming from the instructor of the class. I certainly don't have $170 to spend on an OS I probably won't use for more than 3 months, especially considering that I already have the generic source code. What IS the story? -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
1013734@hydra.maths.unsw.OZ.AU (06/03/91)
In article <23102@shlump.lkg.dec.com> guineau@star.enet.dec.com () writes: > >Amiga Minix does support hard disks and 680x0 processors (not the Prentice Hall 1.5.10 >version, though) and it works great! What is the use of 5 people having a PRIVATE version of MINIX for the Amiga and PH selling a version which is useless to anyone who could be interested in UNIX. As it is, Amiga Minix runs only on games machines (A500's). And the argument of the price scaling is perfectly valid. If you get a piece of software for brand X computer for $169 and it performs only half as well as the same piece of software for brand Y you should only pay half as much (even 2/3 would be reasonable.) As for the "provisional" versions of Minix that did support 68020 and 68030, and claimed to support CBM hard drive controlers - they suck. The kernel that supported the 680x0 but no hard drives couldn't even identify the CPU that I was using. When I had my A2620 activated, it was OK, it recog- nised the 68020 and the 68851. I wasn't too worried about it ignoring the 68881. But when I used it with my A2630 it was way off, it identified my CPU setup to be the same as the A2620, even though the A2630 has a 68030 and a 68882. Now, before you start telling me that the 68030 is same as 68020 with a 68851, it is most definitely NOT. The 68030 doesn't implement MANY of the 68851 MMU commands, but it has more levels of protection than the 68851. Which really doesn't matter anyway because I suspect that MINIX wouldn't use it. Now for the hard drive support. The version of kernel that claimed to support CBM hard drive controlers did not work properly. The problem with it was that it hated just about anyone with A2500. Users with A2500 have the A2090A hard drive controler with an XT (ST-506) drive. (Many A2000 users have it as well.) Now, if you have an XT drive connected, but no SCSI, Amiga Minix would hang as soon as it was booted. It did find the controller and it did start talking to it, but when it found no SCSI drive it just threw up all over itself and then pulled the cord. ie. Did an equivalent of GURU and asked you to reboot the machine. > >The 720K drive size is for compatibility reasons. > Yeah, great. How about mounting one drive for compatibility and the other 3 for use. You can store up to 1 Meg of data on a disk safelly. >Talk to Steve Reiz. I have been beta testing a version of Amiga Minix with all these features. >I have an A2500/30 with 100MB of hard disk dedicated to Minix. Minix boots directly off >the hard drive from AmigaDOS. > Well, I just hope that you are doing some real TESTING and do tell him all about the silly things that MINIX does when you have differently configured hardware. Did you ever try, running Minix without any drives connected to the hard drive controller? With a ST506 only? With ST506 and SCSI, with SCSI only? How about 1Meg of chip memory? More than 8 Meg of fast RAM? With two hard drive controllers? etc. >(sorry for spilling the beans Steve, I just can't bear to see people bashing Amiga Minix) > Please don't take this personaly, because it isn't aimed at anyone in parti- cular. I am just frustrated and want to see something done to have this ugly state of Minix brought up to some reasonable standard. Take it as constructive criticism. >-- >W. John Guineau grep meaning life | more >VMS Development >Digital Equipment Corporation guineau@star.enet.dec.com Peter Urbanec. 1013734@hydra.maths.unsw.oz.au s1013734@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au ---- The only sin is stupidity. ---- P.S. - If you need some beta testing done on some of the hardware mentioned above, get in touch with me, I'll be glad to help, just to see a good version of MINIX for Amiga. BTW: Could we have a PAL version of MINIX that doesn't run with the 10 foot NTSC border at the bottom of the screen. PLEASE PLEASE pretty PLEASE :-)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun3.062414.20629@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > I've been told repeatedly by people that MINIX can be >distributed for educational purposes. My use is an educational >purpose: I'm taking a class on OS that is based around MINIX and >Tanenbaum's book. So does this mean that someone who has >AmigaMINIX is allowed to copy it for me? > BTW, this is coming from the instructor of the class. I >certainly don't have $170 to spend on an OS I probably won't use >for more than 3 months, especially considering that I already >have the generic source code. What IS the story? I'm in the same situation. The PC version is readily available here; that doesn't do me much good unless I want to drive to campus & wait in line for a machine... Of course, it also doesn't currently run on 680(1-4)0 machines, and I'm on a 3000, so I don't have the option to drop to a 68000 mode... Something like Minix would be very useful to me, but not to the point where I'd be willing to fork over $170 for it; even if it would work on my machine, I don't know that it'd be worth it for me. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
Tyler Sarna <tsarna@polar.bowdoin.edu> (06/04/91)
1013734%HYDRA.MATHS.UNSW.OZ.AU@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > > What is the use of 5 people having a PRIVATE version of MINIX for the Amiga and > PH selling a version which is useless to anyone who could be interested in UNIX. The "Private" version is a beta version. Last time Amiga Minix was released before it was done, and look what happened. They want to make sure that the same doesn't happen this time. If they released a buggy version now, then there would be even more complaints like yours. Haven't you learned anything from the "I want my 2.0" discussions in c.s.a? > As it is, Amiga Minix runs only on games machines (A500's). And the argument I don't consider any Amiga models to be "game machines". Bill Hawes wrote ARexx on a dual-floppy A1000. > of software for brand Y you should only pay half as much (even 2/3 would be > reasonable.) I'll agree that Minix as shipped by P-H is worthless, but at least the upgrade will be free. > The kernel that supported the 680x0 but no hard drives couldn't even identify > the CPU that I was using. When I had my A2620 activated, it was OK, it recog- > nised the 68020 and the 68851. I wasn't too worried about it ignoring the 68881. > But when I used it with my A2630 it was way off, it identified my CPU setup to > be the same as the A2620, even though the A2630 has a 68030 and a 68882. In case you didn't know, Exec <= V34 (1.3) can't tell the difference between an 020 an 030 (or 040). Does this mean that Exec sucks, too? > Now, before you start telling me that the 68030 is same as 68020 with a 68851, > it is most definitely NOT. The 68030 doesn't implement MANY of the 68851 MMU > commands, but it has more levels of protection than the 68851. Which really > doesn't matter anyway because I suspect that MINIX wouldn't use it. The 020 and 030 are close enough for Minix to treat them as the same. The only reason Minix does CPU detection at all is to make sure that it saves/restores a task's state correctly. For that purpose, the difference between the 020 and 030 is unimportant. The new Minix kernel gets it's processor info from Exec when the loader is run. When you upgrade to a new exec (V36 or later, eg 2.x), minix will correctly report on your configuration, but it won't have much if any effect on how minix operates. The difference is only cosmetic. > Now for the hard drive support. The version of kernel that claimed to support > CBM hard drive controlers did not work properly. The problem with it was that > it hated just about anyone with A2500. Users with A2500 have the A2090A hard > drive controler with an XT (ST-506) drive. (Many A2000 users have it as well.) > Now, if you have an XT drive connected, but no SCSI, Amiga Minix would hang > as soon as it was booted. It did find the controller and it did start talking > to it, but when it found no SCSI drive it just threw up all over itself and > then pulled the cord. ie. Did an equivalent of GURU and asked you to reboot > the machine. It's for exactly this reason that the HD version is only a beta version. Sheesh! > Yeah, great. How about mounting one drive for compatibility and the other 3 for > use. You can store up to 1 Meg of data on a disk safelly. Considering the amount of the time that the floppy drive is used on a hard-disk system, especially on a *nix system, compatibility outweighs the ability to store an extra 160-280K of data. It should be possible to implement Amiga-style format with new minor device numbers. As they say, "You've got the sources. Fix it". > Well, I just hope that you are doing some real TESTING and do tell him all > about the silly things that MINIX does when you have differently configured > hardware. Did you ever try, running Minix without any drives connected to the > hard drive controller? With a ST506 only? With ST506 and SCSI, with SCSI only? > How about 1Meg of chip memory? More than 8 Meg of fast RAM? With two hard drive > controllers? etc. Minix now supports the ECS Agnus. Minix should run with more that 8M of fast memory, but some will need to be remapped down under 0x00FFFFFF due to the implementation of MM (a problem common to all Minixen). You've got the beta version, and apparently have problems with it. Have you reported these problems? They can't be expected to test every conceivable configuration. That's the whole idea of a beta test. > Please don't take this personaly, because it isn't aimed at anyone in parti- > cular. I am just frustrated and want to see something done to have this ugly > state of Minix brought up to some reasonable standard. Take it as constructive > criticism. If I was Steven or Raymond, I think I would be offended. I'd hardly consider "it sucks" constructive criticism. They ARE working to get it to a reasonable standard. Give 'em a break! > P.S. - If you need some beta testing done on some of the hardware mentioned > above, get in touch with me, I'll be glad to help, just to see a good I think you've missed the whole point. -- Tyler "Ty" Sarna tsarna@polar.bowdoin.edu "Why would anyone need a computer of their own?" - Ken Olsen