HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu (Guy Helmer) (09/26/89)
(Please, no flames in response to this suggestion...)
Having read all the comments regarding the size of future Minix
distributions (read: more disks) and the suggestions
as to packaging, compressing, and so on, it seems like it might be good
to:
1) Distribute the minimal set of executables and Prentice-Hall
copyrighted source code as the official MINIX, and
2) Have a group (MINIX User's Group (MUG?)) offer everything
else (elle, yacc, intermediate upgrades to kernel, fs, & mm,
etc...) as binaries/source on disks, as well as coordinating
archive sites.
I realize that this probably is less than ideal in many ways, but it
offers many advantages over raising the price for Minix or trying
to find better compression algorithms for the complete source.
Anyway, if there's interest in forming a Minix User's Group, I'd like
to hear about it.
.
-- Guy Helmer AT&T: (605) 256-5315
Dakota State University Computing Services (605) 256-6411
BITNET: HELMER@SDNETVBRANDT%DBNUAMA1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (09/26/89)
Hello all, Guy Helmer <HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@VM1.NODAK.EDU> suggests: > ... it seems like it might be good >to: > 2) Have a group (MINIX User's Group (MUG?)) offer everything > else (elle, yacc, intermediate upgrades to kernel, fs, & mm, > etc...) as binaries/source on disks, as well as coordinating > archive sites. Please remember that the Atari ST is much more popular in Europe, and that you would cut off many people over here unless you also have a group or at least a point of distribution in Europe. I'm sure the situation for the PC is similar, even if a greater percentage of Minix-PC has sold in the lower part of that half-continent you insist on calling America :-) :-) :-) Apart from that, I'd like to be in a Minix User Group. Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to spare to *DO* anything in it :-( ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bitnet: VBRANDT@DBNUAMA1 (will go away late '89) Volker A. Brandt UNM409@DBNRHRZ1 (soon) Angewandte Mathematik UUCP: ...!unido!DBNUAMA1.bitnet!vbrandt (Bonn, West Germany) ARPAnet: VBRANDT%DBNUAMA1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (09/26/89)
In article <24806@louie.udel.EDU> HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu (Guy Helmer) writes: > 1) Distribute the minimal set of executables and Prentice-Hall > copyrighted source code as the official MINIX, and > 2) Have a group (MINIX User's Group (MUG?)) offer everything > else Basically, I agree. At least, what I mean is, a certain amount of stuff goes into the P-H distribution, but clearly not everything. How much goes in is something I have to figure out, but clearly there will be things that don't go in. One possibility is for a MUG to distribute that. Another possibility is for P-H to have a second set of disks for Supplementary programs. An advantage of having P-H doing it is that despite the numerous complaints about them, by-and-large they get it right, and they are set up to distributed packages. The 20 times they screwed up, we have heard about it at great length on the net, but the thousand times they didn't, of course nobody said anything. When I post 1.4b this Fall, everyone should take a look to see if I have omitted useful software. Perhaps we can compile a list of things that I don't want to include in the basic distribution, and these can at least be archived in some convenient place and maybe eventually put on disk. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
rbthomas@athos.rutgers.edu (Rick Thomas) (09/29/89)
> From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) > An advantage of having P-H doing it is that despite the numerous > complaints about them, by-and-large they get it right, and they are set up > to distributed packages. The 20 times they screwed up, we have heard about > it at great length on the net, but the thousand times they didn't, of > course nobody said anything. My experience has been that P-H gets it right if you give them the right ISBN number and they get it wrong if you give them the wrong ISBN number (arguably they got it right -- you got it wrong -- but in either case, you didn't get what you wanted) and they get it right/wrong (depending on your persuasion -- optimist/pessimist) about 1/2 the time if you give them no ISBN number at all. This seems to be because their order-taking people are trained to look at ISBN numbers and not trained to look at (to them) insignificant things like "version numbers". Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything different, if I were in the publishing biz... Moral, Andy Please! -- the next time there is a release from P-H -- please post the correct *new* ISBN number to the net and encourage people to order by that number and accept no substitutes. That way we can avoid a lot of grief and flamage. Rick -- Rick Thomas uucp: {ames, att, harvard}!rutgers!jove.rutgers.edu!rbthomas internet: rbthomas@JOVE.RUTGERS.EDU bitnet: rbthomas@zodiac.bitnet Phone: (201) 932-4301
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (09/30/89)
In article <Sep.29.00.02.52.1989.11806@athos.rutgers.edu> rbthomas@athos.rutgers.edu (Rick Thomas) writes: >Andy Please! -- the next time there is a release from P-H -- please post the >correct *new* ISBN number to the net Will do. I should have done that from the beginning. I think their basic problem is that while books often go throught first editions, second editions, etc., the time scale is years, and they never have two or more almost identical titles in stock at once. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)