haynes@island.COM (Rob Haynes) (06/01/91)
What are the problems in getting an X server to work on PC Minix? I'm assuming that if it were easy, it would have already been done. Is the Minix compiler inssuficient? Does Minix support sufficient system calls? Is X just to pickn' big? No one thinks they know enough to do it? Is this a stupid question (the answer is obvious)?
awb@ed.ac.uk (Alan W Black) (06/01/91)
Ok, I'll bite, I haven't seen this one answered for awhile. In article <4132@island.COM> haynes@island.COM (Rob Haynes) writes: > > What are the problems in getting an X server to work on PC Minix? I'm > assuming that if it were easy, it would have already been done. > No its not easy and as far as I'm aware hasn't been done, and I think unlikely to be done. (Note that it is impossible under standard Minix PC due to the restrictions in sizes of executables. The 386 and 68k versions are the only ones that have a chance.) > Is the Minix compiler inssuficient? gcc has been ported to the 386 version (and 68k version) of Minix. Gcc is the default compiler used by the X Consortium for compiling the MIT X distribution. I have installed X on a number of machines and alway used gcc as the compiler as it usually produces smaller and faster binaries. The other compilers available under Minix might be able to do it, but X is huge and few compilers can cope, also there are things in the code which aren't all that portable and because the X Consortium use gcc, gcc is probably the best one to use. > Does Minix support sufficient system calls? Yes (sort of). There things missing in Minix which are used in X but but they are not necessary for X. Sockets are used in X, but not in Minix (though might be in Advanced Minix), though you could probably use named pipes. The main thing that would be difficult is the screen driver. This would have to be written from scratch (or based on the work done by David Bell in mini-x). There is, I believe, VGA driver code in the X distribution but it would require a lot of work to make it work with Minix. > Is X just to pickn' big? The core distribution of X is about 40M, when compiled you need at least that again. The run-time system (assuming you don't have shared libraries which would make the binaries a lot smaller) would be about 30-40M. Thus you would need around 100M of disk free before you start (yes you could do it in less but it would make life a lot harder). Merely installing X on system that its supposed to run on is very difficult. I've once tried to put it on a new machine (Xlib and clients only) which was not part of the standard distribution (an orion), but it is very close to many other machines (vax running BSD), it was still very difficult and made me learn far more about that machine than I really wanted to know :-) > No one thinks they know enough to do it? We (Richard Tobin and I) have seriously considered porting X but have decided against it. It would be a lot of work and its unlcear what the benefit would really be. For a reasonable port it would probably require a fair number of kernel changes (the screen driver at least). It would take a very long time to do. The result would be very large. Few Minix people would have machines big enough to run it and it would be difficult to have a VGA driver that would work on other peoples machines (VGAs are not very standard). > Is this a stupid question (the answer is obvious)? No I don't think its a stupid question, and the answer isn't very obvious, it was one of my early questions about Minix. However, I now think that X is the wrong way to go for Minix. I do think Minix should get some form of window system but X is just too big. David Bell's mini-x looks like a possible alternative, it is small and X-like but doesn't require so many resources to install or run. The MGR window system is another alternative which looks promising. But building a window system (or porting one) is not easy and will take time. The screen drivers are the main problem, they are not the same on every machine and its difficult to find out the information. I think eventually we will run X on our machine but not by porting it to Minix, but by changing from Minix to an alternative operating systems (like BSD 4.4, Mach or GNU -- or some combination of them). Alan Alan W Black 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh, UK Dept of Artificial Intelligence tel: (+44) -31 650 2713 University of Edinburgh email: awb@ed.ac.uk
gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (gdtltr@limbo.org (The Befuddled One)) (06/03/91)
In article <AWB.91Jun1132613@stoat.uk.ac.ed.aipna> awb@ed.ac.uk (Alan W Black) writes: => =>> Is this a stupid question (the answer is obvious)? => =>No I don't think its a stupid question, and the answer isn't very =>obvious, it was one of my early questions about Minix. => =>However, I now think that X is the wrong way to go for Minix. I do =>think Minix should get some form of window system but X is just too =>big. David Bell's mini-x looks like a possible alternative, it is =>small and X-like but doesn't require so many resources to install or =>run. The MGR window system is another alternative which looks =>promising. => I wonder if the windowing system originally designed for Amoeba could be made to work on 386/68K Minix? Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu _o_ ---------------------- _o_ [|o o|] To be is to be networked. [|o o|] |_o_| Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about. |_o_|