cwr@pnet01.cts.com (Will Rose) (05/06/90)
Someone mentioned Coherent recently, but I've lost the message. I gave the
company a call when the ad first came out; the version is binary only, not
protected mode, and has drivers only for MFM and RLL hard drives. It will
run on a 286, but I can't remember if it will cope with an 8086.
I thought of getting it to play with, but Minix upgrades already keep me off
the streets quite successfully.
Good luck - Will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If heaven too had passions | Will Rose
even heaven would | UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!cw
grow old." - Li Ho. | ARPA: crash!pnet01!cwr@nosc.mil
| INET: cwr@pnet01.cts.com
UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!cwr
ARPA: crash!pnet01!cwr@nosc.mil
INET: cwr@pnet01.cts.comjmbrown@ariel.unm.edu (John M. Brown) (05/06/90)
In article <2535@crash.cts.com> cwr@pnet01.cts.com (Will Rose) writes: >Someone mentioned Coherent recently, but I've lost the message. I gave the >company a call when the ad first came out; the version is binary only, not >protected mode, and has drivers only for MFM and RLL hard drives. It will >run on a 286, but I can't remember if it will cope with an 8086. > I have ordered this package and I am still waiting for it.. :\ I understand that it DOES run under Proteced Mode, and will work with a 386, but not a 8088/8086, but who cares about this chips.! As for the hd drivers, they will provide info on how to write others, and they are planning to release ESDI/SCSI sometime in the future.. For a 100 smacks you can't go wrong.! Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you cluttering up the bandwidth..! :) John Brown interNET: jmbrown@ariel.unm.edu
ken@minster.york.ac.uk (05/08/90)
>Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person >is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you >cluttering up the bandwidth..! :) > >John Brown >interNET: jmbrown@ariel.unm.edu Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper version of awk we could throw away bawk. -Ken Tindell ken@minster.york.ac.uk
ingea@IFI.UIO.NO (Inge Arnesen) (05/09/90)
>>Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person >>is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you >>cluttering up the bandwidth..! :) >Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what >degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper >version of awk we could throw away bawk. Well, Coherent is a UNIX compatible OS (well, that's what they all say :-) selling for $100 and is (from what I could deduct from the add) running in 286 protected mode. It's a rewrite and probably faster than the good old UNIX, but it's probably a lot buggier. It's got a development kit included, but as far as I know, it's *no source code*. Alas, I fail to see that it can be of much value to the MINIX community. If you really wan't a nice AWK, the GNU AWK is a good choice. I can never be an official part of MINIX (GNU licence), but like lot's of other GNU stuff, it will be around. As for PC MINIX, it will probably never have true clones of the extended AWK programs and YACC parsers until it gets out of the 64+64K limit. As it has been pointed out by many people, there is a split in the MINIX community between the people that want to use it as an educational tool and those who want a cheap UNIX OS with source. Maybe some of those will sacrifice the demand for source code and buy Coherent. Who knows ? Inge (BoB) { ingea@ifi.uio.no } ========================================================================= == Inge Arnesen, University of Oslo, Norway. == == ==
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/09/90)
ingea@IFI.UIO.NO (Inge Arnesen) writes: >>>Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person >>>is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you >>>cluttering up the bandwidth..! :) > >>Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what >>degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper >>version of awk we could throw away bawk. > >Well, Coherent is a UNIX compatible OS (well, that's what they all say :-) >selling for $100 and is (from what I could deduct from the add) running >in 286 protected mode. It's a rewrite and probably faster than the good >old UNIX, but it's probably a lot buggier. It's got a development kit >included, but as far as I know, it's *no source code*. > >Alas, I fail to see that it can be of much value to the MINIX community. >If you really wan't a nice AWK, the GNU AWK is a good choice. I can never >be an official part of MINIX (GNU licence), but like lot's of other >GNU stuff, it will be around. As for PC MINIX, it will probably never >have true clones of the extended AWK programs and YACC parsers until >it gets out of the 64+64K limit. > >As it has been pointed out by many people, there is a split in the MINIX >community between the people that want to use it as an educational tool >and those who want a cheap UNIX OS with source. Maybe some of those will >sacrifice the demand for source code and buy Coherent. Who knows ? That's the point, MWC proved that they could do it in 286 protected mode. They benched it up to SCO Xenix 286 and according to Byte's Unix benchmark, it beat it. Now the ad states that their kernel is 64K while SCO's is 198K. What MWC has done, I don't know off hand. I'll find out when I order it, but I do know that the 8086 version from using it is very impressive. Supports large model programs, the whole 9 yards. Sure, you can go and butcher up code to hammer it into the 64K code/64K data & stack limit, but a lot of Unix code these days isn't meant for that. It's time to retire the 80x86 (x < 3) and get cracking on a 386 version of Minix. Or if you still want to keep the 80x86 (x < 3) around, then develop an 8086 and 80286 specific version of Minix. Until it becomes more usable, it will only be an academic exercise. I sacrifice the demand for source code at work when dealing with Xenix and SunOS. What you prey for is that the technical support staff is up to par and will help you out if something doesn't work. Sun is ok, but slower than molasses, and SCO...well, I'd best leave that one alone. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Xenix is the ONLY thing ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Microsoft did right. ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (05/09/90)
In article <642166512.7077@minster.york.ac.uk> ken@SoftEng.UUCP (ken) writes: >Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what >degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper >version of awk we could throw away bawk. I love optimists. The world would be so gloomy without them. Coherent provides binary only. The chance that it's system call interface is exactly the same as MINIX' is smaller than epsilon. Of course you could modify MINIX to have the Coherent system call interface ... Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
dwennick@polari.UUCP (don wennick) (05/10/90)
In article <2590@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > > Sure, you can go and butcher up code >to hammer it into the 64K code/64K data & stack limit, but a lot of Unix code >these days isn't meant for that. Unfortunately, Coherent doesn't do large model. After I talked to MW's people I cancelled my order, since I've already got Minix w/source, and there didn't seem to be much point to getting Coherent. They told me they only did small model so 286's could do quicker task switching. I, of course, thought "what about all the 386/etc. machines" :-(. Coherent seemed like an incredible deal until I found that out... -- Someone else letting me speak for them? No way! What a riot! HAhaHAhaHAha... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Wennick | donw@rwing.UUCP | Pvt. Baldrick: "What's one plus one?" | dwennick@polari.UUCP | Capt. Blackadder: "Oh! Wibble-wibble."
dfenyes@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (FENYES DAVID A) (09/28/90)
>Since you are a user of Coherent I would like to ask if your Coherent >will do a large memory model? I have a 286 and have had my eye on >Coherent for some time but have not found anyone else who has used >it. the only real drawback of the MINIX os is that the program size >is so limited for us 16bit users. if Coherent absolves this, I'll >happily switch. If you have any suggestive comments about Coherent, >I'd love to hear about them! Unfortunately, Coherent 3.0.0 has the same limitation. The is the chief complaint aired on the Coherent mailing list. What makes it worse is that recompile their kernel like Minix users can. Mark Williams is planning a 32-bit 386 version of Coherent for the 1st quarter of '91, but judging by the delays in releasing the current version, I wouldn't hold my breath. If you already have Minix, you may want to keep it for a while. One big advantage is that you can pick up free upgrades from the n. Another is that there are thousands of people using MINIX on a broad base of machines. While Atari users may be able to do things that 286 users can't, Things that compile within the 286's limits will work. Also, you have the promise of a POSIX MINIX 2.0, which means that you can start plan for the future when writing new code. Minix is becoming a mature product, and the source is out there, and A.T. describes it in detail, too! You know who the MINIX Gods are, and they listen and answer your questions personally. These are powerful pluses. A few years from now, 32 bit Minixes will be standard, and may evolve into a OS of choice for Universities. Coherent has several good points, despite its small size. First, it is quite a polished system, although you wouldn't know it reading the mailing list. Even though some of the utilities have quirks, It has the feel of a system that has been around for many years. Porting the Clam Shell, Elle, Adventure, Elvis, GNU stuff, are fairly trivial tasks, so anything that runs under 286 Minix will work for 286 Coherent. The compiler is good, considering that it too is limited in process size. Coherent comes with serious implementations of everything a *nix should have. Also, installation of new device drivers involves recompilation of only the driver, which can then be loaded by the system. Installation is a breeze, it takes up only ~5M of disk space *with* all online manuals. The system is supported by MWC, and they will *officially* support their 386 version. Coherent also supports networking, etc. I have not tried this. I plan to stick with Coherent for now, but if Minix gets too far ahead, or I get a 386 before the 386 Coherent is ready, then make room for One more Minixer. If 386 Coherent comes out first, I'm getting it, because Coherent is truly a quality product, even if it's now only a toy. all 32-bit versions will be the same, etc. Hope that answers some of your questions David
dfenyes@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (FENYES DAVID A) (09/29/90)
I lost the email asking who sells Coherent & where the mailing list is, but briefly: Coherent is sold by Mark Williams Company (Phone 1-800-MARK-WMS, in US) There is a new, not quite full, ftp-site for Coherent stuff at piggy.ucsb.edu. The mailing list is at cs.wisc.edu. Subscribe by sending a request to coherent-request@cs.wisc.edu mail to the list proper at coherent@cs.wisc.edu David