stevej@studsys.mu.edu (jovanovic) (02/12/90)
I was wondering if there has been any news on the release date of MacMINIX since the article in UNIX Today. Also, I have a few questions about MINIX itself, and where one can get executables that will run under it (and/or source code). Is there an alternative to the Bourne shell, like cshell or another, more functional shell? As I understand, you can't alias commands with the shell that comes with MINIX, which is supposed to be "functionally equivalent" to the Bourne shell. On DOS machines, is it possible to run DOS programs under MINIX, in a subshell? Where can we find sources/executables for things like sz/rz and the vi clones? Is there a Pascal compiler available for MINIX? And in general, how does MINIX compare with the other UNIX's for micros, like SCO, XENIX, etc.? Thanks a lot for your help! -stevej. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | stevej@studsys.mu.edu | Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes--Warhol | | Marquette University EE | Andy, where's my 15 minutes? --Bowie | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (02/13/90)
In article <915@studsys.mu.edu> stevej@studsys.mu.edu (jovanovic) writes: >I was wondering if there has been any news on the release date of MacMINIX since >the article in UNIX Today. Summer, maybe. > As I understand, you can't alias commands with the shell You can certainly make shell scripts with any name you want. >On DOS machines, is it possible to run DOS programs under MINIX? Nope. >Where can we find sources/executables for things like sz/rz and the vi clones? In the net archives. >Is there a Pascal compiler available for MINIX? Yes, from UniPress and Transmediair. See the Preface to the book. >And in general, how does MINIX compare with the other UNIX's for micros, >like SCO, XENIX, etc.? MINIX has many fewer bells and whistles, is cheaper, and has source code included. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) (02/14/90)
Fewer bells and whistles are fine, I don't care about floating point, and I can get GNU sources on my own. However, one rumored feature of MacMinix makes it all but useless for my purposes: a separate file system. I heard that using Mac files with the minix software requires COPYING files from one file system to another. Is this for real? If not, please ignore the rest of this msg. The main reason that I (and many other people in my department) are interested in MacMinix is that we want to be able to use UNIX tools on our current projects. I want to be able to scan my files using gawk. I want to use flex and bison to write a program to create forward declarations of my LSC files. I want "rm *~". If we are talking two different file systems, the main question is why? Is it permissions? If so, emulate what you can with Finder Flags and toss the rest out the window. -- Pete Keleher pete@titan.rice.edu
umbaugh@evax.arl.utexas.edu (David Umbaugh) (02/14/90)
Pete Keleher complains of minix having a unix like file system instead
of a Macintosh HFS in the Macintosh implementation. He wants unix
tools ported to the mac rather than a unix version 7 look (much)
alike.
Pete, that is not what Minix was built to be. It is a unix-ish
operating system intended for the pedagogical use of studying what OS
code looks like and how it can be modified as course projects, etc.
If it is useful for other purposes, so much the better. One should no
more expect Mac HFS in mac Minix than one should expect MS-DOS or any
other micro OS file system in the original PC version.
L. David (Dave) Umbaugh, Computer Science Engineering, University of
Texas at Arlingon, PO Box 19015 Arlington, TX 76012, (817) 273-3628
<umbaugh@evax.utarl.edu> Formerly <umbaugh@evax.arl.utexas.edu> or
<CS_UMBAUGH@EVAX.ARL.UTEXAS.EDU> or
<umbaugh@hcx.arl.utexas.edu>
<B652LDU@UTARLG> BITNETpete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) (02/14/90)
L. David (Dave) Umbaugh writes: > Pete, that is not what Minix was built to be. It is a unix-ish > operating system intended for the pedagogical use of studying what OS > code looks like and how it can be modified as course projects, etc. > If it is useful for other purposes, so much the better. Correct. I think playing with the source could be a blast. However, the fact remains that if minix used the host file system, it would be VERY useful in a variety of additional ways. There are many advantages to using the host file system, and the only disadvantage that I can see is some small amount of extra hacking required of the person who ports the product. If there are additional problems, I'd love to hear them. If not, the small amount of additional hacking required would seem to far outweighed by the utility gained. How 'bout it, guys? I know that both Andy and the guy that made the Mac port are out there. Are there other problems? Do y'all argue about this with every new port? Please understand that I'm not whining, just confused. If worse comes to worse, I'll hack up the file system myself. -- Pete Keleher pete@titan.rice.edu
pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) (02/14/90)
Okay, okay, I finally got it through my thick head. Being an operating systems person, I tend to consider file systems uninteresting unless we're talking about reliability. I still would like to hear about any non-philisophical problems w/ a file system port. -- Pete Keleher pete@titan.rice.edu
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (3673,ATTT) (02/15/90)
In article <PETE.90Feb13222855@titan.rice.edu> pete@titan.rice.edu (Pete Keleher) writes: >... if minix used the host file system, it would be VERY >useful in a variety of additional ways. There are many advantages to using >the host file system, and the only disadvantage that I can see is some >small amount of extra hacking required of the person who ports the product. [...] >Please understand that I'm not whining, just confused. If worse comes to >worse, I'll hack up the file system myself. ----------------------------------- >Pete Keleher pete@titan.rice.edu Hi, Pete, It seems that this was one of the original intentions of minix itself. (ie, being able to drop in a new file system, or anyother part of the OS) N'est pas? -bill -- ===================================================================== Bill Rankin email address: att!moss!wtr was: Bell Labs, Whippany NJ att!bromo!wtr now: AT&T Federal Systems, Burlington NC (919) 228 3673 (cornet 291)
archetyp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph R Pickert) (02/16/90)
Let me address some of the issues, and questions re MacMINIX before things reach too fevered of a pitch. First, all indications are that it will be available sometime relatively soon (maybe summer, as Andy says). Many of you were directly responsible for convincing Prentice-Hall to make this software available. The net is a unique resource in many ways, and this is just another example of it. Second, floating point will probably not be available as part of the release but, as mentioned elsewhere, can be added. Please keep in mind that this thing we call MINIX is a maturing body of software, and has not yet reached full growth. Let's not expect too much too soon. MacMINIX will not have every feature to please every palate, or it would be called Mac4.3BSD, would not be available for 10 years, and would cost $125,000 or whatever AT&T sells source for these days. Third, for whatever reason, people seem to be interested in writing stand alone Macintosh software using MacMINIX. Buy Lightspeed C instead. You will be a lot happier. That is not to say you CAN'T do it with MacMINIX, but until some more tools are developed you probably won't want to. Last, integrating the Mac file system. I am working on this now. Would I have bothered to make it run under Multifinder and then not bother to do something reasonable in this regard? You people worry too much. Something will be there, and it might even be suitable for what you want. If not, then the source code is there too. As for the remaining questions: is there a vi, emacs, csh, awk, etc., the tools in the Mac distribution will be essentially the same as the new 1.5 distribution. I will post a final list of utilities when there is one if there is that much interest. Joe Pickert
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon Watte) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb15.193347.2060@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> archetyp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph R Pickert) writes: >Let me address some of the issues, and questions re >MacMINIX before things reach too fevered of a pitch. Thanx, they were appreciated ! >Second, floating point will probably not be available as part of the >release but, as mentioned elsewhere, can be added. Please keep If the source is available (at extra cost) for the compiler, it's not _THAT_ hard (he he) to add FP. (At least SANE or FPU calls) >Third, for whatever reason, people seem to be interested in >writing stand alone Macintosh software using MacMINIX. >Buy Lightspeed C instead. You will be a lot happier. That is I _HAVE_ THINK C. I even have MPW. I don't like MPW, and I miss scripting and awk and... in THINK. I'm gonna use MacMINIX as a command-line shell to switch in&out to when running THINK C. And maybe I'm gonna do something more. After all, more than once I've wanted source for the V.2-4.3 clone I'm currently administrating... >Last, integrating the Mac file system. I am working on this now. Might I suggest the capability of adding the Mac fs as external devices (like, /dev/hfs0, /dev/hfs1 ...) and make them mountable with mount ? Maybe even /dev/SCSI0, /dev/SCSI1 ... /dev/SCSI6, and sockets, and RPC (why not RPC2 while we're at it) and... Oh. Sorry. I think I got out of hand :-) >for what you want. If not, then the source code is there too. Just what MINIX is all about... >same as the new 1.5 distribution. I will post a final list of >utilities when there is one if there is that much interest. I'm interested, at least. h+ -- --- Stay alert ! - Trust no one ! - Keep your laser handy ! --- h+@nada.kth.se == h+@proxxi.se == Jon Watte longer .sig available on request