rwa@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) (09/21/89)
root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) writes: >In article <24162@louie.udel.EDU>, Leisner.Henr@xerox.com (marty) writes: >> I'm running patch: >> $Header: patch.c,v 2.0 86/09/17 15:37:32 lwall Exp $ >> Patch level: 0 >Your patch program is years and 12 patch levels out of date. This >may account for some of the problems. Agreed. I have sources for patch & patches 1 thru 7, but have had endless trouble building the thing (expr is broken, etc etc etc) and honestly I have lots of real, day-job work to do. Could someone out there who has a working ST/Minix 1.1 patch get in touch with me ? I am hurting for this, as I want to get the serial i/o stuff running, and I WILL NOT hand patch in the cdiffs. Far to likely to screw up :-) and I am not in the mood to do the work I paid good money to have done for me (I refer to the hardware purchase price) - I'd far rather trust patch. Responses of the form 'call the {bitnet,uucp,arpanet} archiver at mumble.foo.edu' will be appreciated but ignored. You have no idea how weak our connectivity is :-). I want mail from a real person. I will gladly cover expenses up to, say, $10. rwa@aungbad.AthabascaU.CA (we have an MX record somewhere) {the-world}!alberta!atha!aungbad!rwa (use the maps) +1 403 675 6311 (work) +1 403 675 3480 (home, but I'm never there) or if you get _desperate_ to help out a perfect stranger :-) Ross Alexander, c/o Computing Services, Athabasca University, PO Box 10 000, Athabasca, Alberta, CANADA - T0G 0B0 -- rwa@aungbad.AthabascaU.CA "Now if I could just think of a clever sig..."
sandy47@ucsco.UCSC.EDU (90784000) (09/25/89)
I have roamed the Internet archives for several months, since I first got my purchased Minix package in the mail. There is an incredible amount of information avaialble on the PC version(s), which is to be expected, and a much smaller amount available for the ST, again, as expected. Everyone talks about this patch or that, what they have ported over, what problems they have had installing this or that. I have read a multitude of repeated cycles of the same questions, mostly from new users like myself. I have also seen the many responses from experts which are of a derisive nature toward these questions. I think that both side have a point, just as many others who have purchased the commercial version of Minix for the ST, I _need_ answers to my questions and friendly help, even including a disk swapping now and then. The experts (who though they don't remember it much, were once novices too) _need_ a forum which they can use to pass on information and get help too. I think that there needs to be some modification in the structure of the group: machine oriented groups is certainly one way, but the portability of Minix suggests that this is _not_ the way to alleviate the problems. Level orient- ation seems like the better approach, since the new users would not then be interfering with the net bandwidth of the experts. Questions which are have been repeated a number of times could be dealt with easily since that is why the group was formed. I think that the previous article sums up the difficulty of the patch system and its distribution network as well with: just tell me where I can get a modified version. Why should a beginner, who _wants_ to learn about the operating system, or who just wants to use the operating system be put into a situation where they must become an "expert" before they can do so? I too would like to pay someone for a real, usable version of Minix-ST with the latest patches installed, and I think that the number of people who would doso is large enough to make it a commercial venture, though that doesn't seem the way it should be dealt with. How about some useful debate on the problems that have been troubling us all: comp.os.minix.pc comp.os.minix.st comp.os.minix.new comp.os.minix.exp Please, let's make this worthwhile, flames --> /dev/null, and be part of the solution, not the problem! (If you want to make a personal comment, send it to me by email, don't post it here.)
hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (09/25/89)
In article <9199@saturn.ucsc.edu>, sandy47@ucsco.UCSC.EDU (90784000) writes: > > same questions, mostly from new users like myself. I have also seen the many > responses from experts which are of a derisive nature toward these questions. I don't recall much that I would call derisive in this newsgroup. > > > I too would like to pay someone for a real, usable version of Minix-ST with > the latest patches installed, and I think that the number of people who I have previously posted a complete MINIX Kernel. I and others have surely added to the MINIX ST functionallity. Unfortunately, I would not call the resulting product "real, usable version" and we have tried. It is a good teaching tool. It is great for maintaining the hard disk for TOS. However, MINIX remains unstable, slow, and limited. Its message passing architecture is cute, neatly avoids the ATT patents, and SLOW and BUGGY. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzaz!hcj hcj@lzaz.att.com
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (09/27/89)
In article <9199@saturn.ucsc.edu> sandy47@ucsco.UCSC.EDU (Larry McElhiney) writes: >I too would like to pay someone for a real, usable version of Minix-ST with >the latest patches installed, and I think that the number of people who would doso is large enough to make it a commercial venture, though that doesn't seem >the way it should be dealt with. Several problems with that. First, the person who ported Minix to the ST doesn't have time, and Andy doesn't own an ST. Even if they were very actively supporting it, there would still be a rather significant time lag between the fixes on the net (still a good way to distribute them!) and their being shipped by `The Company'. Prentice-Hall already sells Minix-ST, and I really don't think they'd appreciate competition... and they have the legal say. Of couse, there HAVE been 12 OFFICIAL patches... Why not consider the patches for "those weirdos on the net" and ignore them? One prof around here frequently uses that term, partly because I botched the library ordering in v1.2 (oops... and the problem still isn't REALLY solved). If you can't handle the patches, then wait for Prentice-Hall to ship the next release. >How about some useful debate on the problems that have been troubling us all: > comp.os.minix.pc > comp.os.minix.st > comp.os.minix.new > comp.os.minix.exp How many times has splitting comp.os.minix been suggested? Last time it was comp.sources.minix... Great, four newsgroups to read rather than one. Problems that the PC people are having might very well be the same ones that the ST people are having and vice versa (then add other machines, when they're released), so I (for one) would end up reading all the groups. No, I like having Just One group. Use of keywords saying what machine people are talking about would be nice... On the other hand, anybody who considers themself an 'expert' could just ignore the .new group and their problems -- then we wouldn't have to feel guilty about not helping them :-) I would expect crossposting in all of these groups to be rampant, meaning that I would get to read stuff four times. Great, just what I DONT want! Minix is defined by whatever is running on Andrew Tanenbaum's machine. -- Glen Overby <ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP) ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)