kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (03/25/91)
I imagine this post will attract several flames...sensitive types be careful! A few questions: o Is there a source to FTP manpages that work with Minix? I can get them from the unix box at work, and (sort of) read them...if I can get man to work.... nroff -man file |more seems to work pretty well, is this the recommended way? If not, is there a guideline better than the manual for this? o A few times today I've run into mentin of job control. What is this mysterious brew? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it basically mean that a 'suspended' process just doesn't get any CPU until it's revived? Is it currently in development? I guess that's all for right now, cheers to all.... -- | Ken Corey aka... kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu | | "We MUST succeed, otherwise we run the risk of failure...." | | -Dan Quayle |
webber@csd.uwo.ca (Robert E. Webber) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar24.235828.45888@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
. o Is there a source to FTP manpages that work with Minix? I can get them
. from the unix box at work, and (sort of) read them...
If your machine at work doesn't run Version 7 unix, this may be a mixed
blessing as well as a copyright problem I won't even think about touching.
There is a collection of stripped-down man pages created from scratch that
have been posted from time to time in this group and are supposed to be
somewhere on the plains.nodak.edu archive server. Personally I think
docummenting the present system is more important than modifying it,
but with the book available offline and the source available online,
I doubt that many people see a need for the equivalent of an online
version of the book melded with traditional-style man pages. By the
way, the existing man pages don't use nroff but instead come preformatted
(a horrible idea that has become quite popular on System V based systems
that is motivated by the slowness and historic unreliability of available
nroff clones).
. o A few times today I've run into mentin of job control. What is this
. mysterious brew? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it
. basically mean that a 'suspended' process just doesn't get any CPU
. until it's revived? Is it currently in development?
Job control doesn't play a significant role in the BOOK since it is focussed
on V7 ideas. Job control is essentially an approach to virtual terminals
that was ported from TENEX to BSD (along with a number of other things).
Thus the critical aspect of it is the ability to switch terminal control
between multiple processes. Thus, it has been frequently claimed that
window systems remove the necessity for traditional job control which
mucked up the terminal i/o. I don't see much mention of it in my '86
POSIX draft, but the 1989 The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD
UNIX Operating System (Leffler, McKusick, Karels, and Quarterman,, Addison-
Wesley - no ISBN in my copy) indicates that POSIX job control essentially
means the BSD model - so, if you are interested, it would be worthwhile
tracking down both the Leffler et al book and a current version of the
POSIX specs (since Minix-developers seem to currently view posixization and
ansifying as progress). Given virtual consoles already in many Minixes,
the ability to remove a job from the scheduling queue via nice would
be useful. One of the neater things I stumbled upon in SunOS is the ability
to pause a process, get a core dump of it, and then continue the process
on its way. I suspect it will be less controversial if it is proposed
as enhancements to the scheduler rather than called `job control.'
--- BOB (webber@csd.uwo.ca)KENC@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Ken Corey, CSCI Major...) (03/29/91)
>Subj: RE: Various & Sundry questions....FLAMMABLE! Bob, I just wanted to thank you for your reply...I'm still chewing on the part about job control...;) Abount those books, I went to the library, and they didn't have them...(would've been too convenient I expect), anyway, do you have any information on where I could find them? Cripes! I thought Minix was a pretty complete OS, but GADS, it's not ANYTHING like the Unix I'm reading about....it's VERY true that it's strictly Unix-like...;) Well, talk to you later, | Ken Corey aka... kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu | | "We MUST succeed, otherwise we run the risk of failure...." | | -Dan Quayle |
webber@csd.uwo.ca (Robert E. Webber) (03/30/91)
In article <49236@nigel.ee.udel.edu> KENC@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Ken Corey, CSCI Major...) writes:
.
. Cripes! I thought Minix was a pretty complete OS, but GADS, it's not
.ANYTHING like the Unix I'm reading about....it's VERY true that it's strictly
.Unix-like...;)
The main difference between minix and current unix systems is that
minix was intended to be coherent and understandable. Commercial
unix vendors have never felt constained to sell a system that a
single person could actually look at and say that it works.
---- BOB (webber@csd.uwo.ca)"Ken Corey, CSCI Major..." <KENC@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> (04/02/91)
>. Cripes! I thought Minix was a pretty complete OS, but GADS, it's not >.ANYTHING like the Unix I'm reading about....it's VERY true that it's strictly >.Unix-like...;) > >The main difference between minix and current unix systems is that >minix was intended to be coherent and understandable. Commercial >unix vendors have never felt constained to sell a system that a >single person could actually look at and say that it works. Understood. Thinking back on that message, I hope I didn't step on any toes there. With a little reflection, it's beginning to dawn on me that Minix is a great way to bootstrap oneself into Unix (down to the hardware if one is so inclined), so now that I'm working on the basics, I can devote more time to understanding the more abstract things, and I'll understand them better when I make the fancy extensions myself, eh? | Ken Corey aka... kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu | | "We MUST succeed, otherwise we run the risk of failure...." | | -Dan Quayle |
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (04/02/91)
In article <49498@nigel.ee.udel.edu> KENC@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Ken Corey, CSCI Major...) writes: >>The main difference between minix and current unix systems is that >>minix was intended to be coherent ... I don't think the Mark Williams Company would approve of that. In any event, I didn't say it. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen) (04/05/91)
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) wrote: > In article <49498@nigel.ee.udel.edu> KENC@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Ken Corey, CSCI Major...) writes: > >>>The main difference between minix and current unix systems is that >>>minix was intended to be coherent ... > > > I don't think the Mark Williams Company would approve of that. In any event, > I didn't say it. Hmmm... my MWC disks spell "Coherent 3.0.0". See the difference here? They capitalized the product to make sure... :-) Fred. -- MicroWalt Corporation, for MINIX Development waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org Tel (+31) 252 230 205, Hoefbladhof 27, 2215 DV VOORHOUT, The Netherlands "An Operating System is what the _USERS_ think of it- me"