cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Christopher N Maag) (04/28/87)
I hope that no one takes this article as a flame to MINX. I have just become
aware of this product recently, and I have a few questions about it.
What is the big deal about MINX? It seems to me that a product such
as this one is not real exciting. There are many "UNIX-like" operating systems
available that are reasonably priced. For instance, I use a product called
PCNX by a company called Wendin. It retails for $99, and although it doesn't
include a C compilier (as I gather MINX does), it does have a lot of benefits
that MINIX doesn't have. One of these is the ability to run most of the MS-
DOS software that you may have. It will run almost all of the "well-behaved"
programs, such as the compiliers you are already using. It runs on top of DOS,
which means that if you have a hard-disk that runs under DOS, it will talk to
PCNX. (No more patching the kernal to get your hard-disk to work). Of course,
the disadvantage of this is that you don't get quite the same directory
security that you get with UNIX. You get the source code to the programs, and
they also include a decent manual on all of the system services. The system
supports three simultaneous users, and ten processes per user. There are 71
separate UNIX utilites included as well. (this is only a small description
of some of the features available)
This product is available bug-free today. (Actually, it's been around
for about a year now) The company that wrote it provides excellent support.
I guess I don't really understand what all the fuss is about with MINIX.
The second question is where can I read a detailed description of MINIX,
without reading "The Book". Does anyone have a copy of a press release or
something?
Finally, is there a different version of MINIX for each different
microprocessor? (E.g. a 808n version vs. a 80286 version vs. a 80386 version.)
By the way, I don't work for Wendin. I'm just a satisfied user.scott@rainbo.dec.com.UUCP (04/30/87)
<RE: csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cmaag, U of WI-Milwaukee, Computing Services Division> > For instance, I use a product called >PCNX by a company called Wendin. It retails for $99, and although it doesn't >... One of these is the ability to run most of the MS-DOS software that you >may have. It will run almost all of the "well-behaved" programs, such as the >compiliers you are already using. ... Hah! I ordered the full set of WENDIN products soon after they came out on the market. Although part of my problem may have been getting an early version, I must say that was so displeased with packages that I returned them immediately. With few exceptions, the only programs "well behaved" and small enough to run under PCNX or PCVMS were PD tools or tools I wrote myself. Even the MS compiler failed in some cases. In short, WENDIN PCNX isn't (or possibly wasn't) even in the same ballpark as MINIX, XINU, etc. > This product [WENDIN's PCNX] is available bug-free today. Bug-free? Is that a challenge? :{) >The company that wrote it provides excellent support. No-hassle refunds anyway. >I guess I don't really understand what all the fuss is about with MINIX. >The second question is where can I read a detailed description of MINIX, >without reading "The Book". In the first sentence you plead ignorance and in the second reject the opportunity to learn!? "The Book" IS a detailed description of MINIX plus you may learn something about operating systems you didn't know or forgot. Education isn't a "gimme"! Buy the book and read it; it won't hurt you. I'm sorry if I have offended the "net" with my response. The combination of my experience with PCNX and the availability of info on MINIX pushed me beyond my "limit". ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert P. Scott USENET: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mosaic!scott PHONE: (603) 886-1383 SMAIL: 29 Heritage Circle, Hudson, NH 03051-3427 Posted: Thu 30-Apr-1987 10:45 EST To: RHEA::DECWRL::"comp.os.minix"
martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner) (04/30/87)
In article <2055@uwmcsd1.UUCP> cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.UUCP (Christopher N Maag) writes: > What is the big deal about MINX? It seems to me that a product such >as this one is not real exciting. There are many "UNIX-like" operating systems >available that are reasonably priced. For instance, I use a product called >PCNX by a company called Wendin. It retails for $99, and although it doesn't >include a C compilier (as I gather MINX does), it does have a lot of benefits >that MINIX doesn't have. One of these is the ability to run most of the MS- >DOS software that you may have. It will run almost all of the "well-behaved" >programs, such as the compiliers you are already using. It runs on top of DOS, >which means that if you have a hard-disk that runs under DOS, it will talk to >PCNX. (No more patching the kernal to get your hard-disk to work). Of course, >the disadvantage of this is that you don't get quite the same directory >security that you get with UNIX. You get the source code to the programs, and >they also include a decent manual on all of the system services. The system >supports three simultaneous users, and ten processes per user. There are 71 >separate UNIX utilites included as well. (this is only a small description >of some of the features available) I bought both Wendin's PCNX and OS toolbox for use at work. While I feel it was a worthwhile investment (ye Gads -- about 1.5 mbytes of source code for $200) -- it wasn't useful. I wasn't able to run anything else I wanted to run under PCNX -- PCNX works well by itself and with the supplied tools but most of the other stuff I wanted to run made it crash. I have a PC AT full of boards (ethernet, scsi, CP/M emulator, etc.). It turns out it wasn't useful. In addition, my understanding of PCNX system services is they are more like VMS than Unix (I gather this second hand, I don't know anything about VMS). Unix source code will * not * compile easily for PCNX. PCNX source code for various utilities will not easily compile for MSDOS or UNIX. In light of how easy it isto port a lot of software between MSDOS and UNIX, I'd say PCNX has some fundamental conceptual flaws. I also didn't like the layout of the source code -- it seems everthing includes all the system header files whether you need them or not. PCNX is a technical product. Comparing PCNX to Minix, I'd much rather hack Minix than PCNX -- I find the textbook and the source code far more understandable and aestically pleasing. marty leisner xerox corp. leisner.henr@xerox.com
paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen) (05/01/87)
cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Christopher N Maag) writes: > What is the big deal about MINX? It seems to me that a product such >as this one is not real exciting. There are many "UNIX-like" operating systems >available that are reasonably priced. For instance, I use a product called >PCNX by a company called Wendin. It retails for $99, and although it doesn't [description of PCNX deleted] > This product is available bug-free today. (Actually, it's been around >for about a year now) The company that wrote it provides excellent support. >I guess I don't really understand what all the fuss is about with MINIX. Christopher, you're the first person I've heard say anything really nice about Wendin's PCNX. Some of the comments I've heard are: it's buggy; it doesn't run most DOS software; it's really VMS underneath, and so not very unix-like; it crashes. I would really like for Wendin to succeed, so I'm happy to hear that you are a satisfied user. Perhaps the reason you can't get excited about MINIX is that you *are* a user. That's not a put-down, just an observation. MINIX is a hacker's operating system. It will probably be slow. The hard disk driver is apparently buggy. It won't run *any* DOS software. But, from a programmer's point of view, it is *very* close to V7 unix. There are people out there working on uucp, TCP/IP, and packet radio for minix! I haven't seen that kind of excitement generated by any of the other unix-like DOS enhancements. I don't plan to use minix to do any useful things anytime soon. Its going to take months to convert the floppy, winchester, and console drivers to run on my non-IBM machine. I plan to hack on MINIX for fun! Paul ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul L. Allen | "Look out, men! He's armed!" Boeing Advanced Technology Center | "I've got a cheese grater, | and I'm not afraid to use it!" | "Don't make it any harder paula@boeing.com | on yourself, kid! Drop it!" ...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!paula | "Eat mozzarella, copper!"
myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) (05/01/87)
I also am a dissatisfied user of Wendin's PCNX. My copy could also be considered for sale! myxm@lanl.gov
mh@killer.UUCP (Mike Hobgood) (05/02/87)
I've looked at PCNX and for the most part the code is terrible and inefficient. There are far too many include files making the whole thing unreadable. The other thing is that it rides on top of MSDOS rather than throwing it out. I never got any of my daily-use programs to work with PCNX, so the idea of running a file in the background while running WordPerfect etc, is bogus. There is no such thing as well behaved (or so I've found).
paradis@encore.UUCP (Jim Paradis) (05/04/87)
In article <2055@uwmcsd1.UUCP> cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.UUCP (Christopher N Maag) writes: >I hope that no one takes this article as a flame to MINX. I have just become >aware of this product recently, and I have a few questions about it. THIS article may or may not be construed as a flame to PCNX. It's sure full of complaints. Read on. > > What is the big deal about MINX? It seems to me that a product such >as this one is not real exciting. There are many "UNIX-like" operating systems >available that are reasonably priced. For instance, I use a product called >PCNX by a company called Wendin. I DID use Wendin's PCNX (Got it back when they called it PCUNIX... AT&T must've sent a nastygram to Wendin shortly thereafter). I tried it out about 3 times before giving up in disgust. >It retails for $99, and although it doesn't include a C compilier (as I gather >MINX does), it does have a lot of benefits that MINIX doesn't have. For $99 you get the kernel binaries and the utility sources. It'll cost you ANOTHER $99 for the kernel sources. Their advertising is not clear on this. And, as you can see, for about $125 you get MINIX with FULL SOURCES (except the C compiler) a C compiler, an editor, and a useful set of utilities. In addition, the design documentation of MINIX is infinitely more complete than the slender binders offered with PCNX! >One of these is the ability to run most of the MS-DOS software that you may have. >It will run almost all of the "well-behaved" programs, such as the compiliers you >are already using. An awful lot of DOS software is quite "ill-behaved", so this feature is useless. There were quite a few programs (even well-behaved ones) that I couldn't get to work under PCNX. Among those was my Microsoft C compiler! >It runs on top of DOS, which means that if you have a hard-disk that runs under >DOS, it will talk to PCNX. (No more patching the kernal to get your hard-disk >to work). I will give credit where it's due... the fact that it can come out of the box and run on top of DOS is definitely an advantage... (Of course, it doesn't run COMPLETELY on top of dos... it still requires a hardware-compatible PC to run on). >Of course, the disadvantage of this is that you don't get quite the same >directory security that you get with UNIX. Put it another way... since it runs on top of DOS, you get ALL the disadvantages of the DOS filesystem (no links, restricted filename syntax, poor handling of concurrent access...) >You get the source code to the programs But not the kernel >they also include a decent manual on all of the system services. "System service" is VMS terminology -- and this is the main reason why PCNX is a poor UNIX lookalike. The entire system architecture and system call structure is patterned after VMS, with a UNIX-like interface grafted on top. Translating the VMS protocols to UNIX (e.g. translating pipes to mailboxes) wastes valuable CPU cycles -- something a PC/XT cannot spare! MINIX was designed from the ground up to be as UNIX-compatible as possible. > This product is available bug-free today. (Actually, it's been around ^^^^^^^^HAH!!! >for about a year now) The company that wrote it provides excellent support. >I guess I don't really understand what all the fuss is about with MINIX. No software product is bug-free, and the documentation provided with PCNX and the Operating System Toolbox is terribly insufficient for helping find and fix them. Andy's "Book" is EXCELLENT in this regard! > The second question is where can I read a detailed description of MINIX, >without reading "The Book". Does anyone have a copy of a press release or >something? As far as I know, the only "press release" for MINIX was the one distributed electronically on Usenet in December of 1986. If you REALLY want to know about MINIX, find a copy of "The Book" and read it. The second-best way is to read as much of comp.os.minix as you have access to. If you want, I'll email you a copy of the "press release" and the early messages about MINIX... > Finally, is there a different version of MINIX for each different >microprocessor? (E.g. a 808n version vs. a 80286 version vs. a 80386 version.) At present, no. However, some enterprising soul is certain to come up with a version that supports the advanced features of the advanced chips. That's the beauty of the way MINIX is distributed... it INVITES creativity and experimentation. In fact, it starts to feel just like the early days of UNIX, when licensing fees were cheap and hackery was encouraged. >By the way, I don't work for Wendin. I'm just a satisfied user. And I'm a highly dissatisfied (former) user of PCNX. If anyone out there in net-land really wants to try PCNX, I'll be glad to sell you my copy real cheap!
bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot) (05/04/87)
> I hope that no one takes this article as a flame to MINX. I have just become > aware of this product recently, and I have a few questions about it. Well, in taking your comments as simply an opinion, I'll try not to flame, however I thought you should know that PCNX isn't all it's worked up to be. First, I've used both PCUNIX and PCVMS (and the toolbox). While it's an impressive collection of stuff, it no comes no where near the quality of MINIX. Many others have recently posted reasons why this is. MINIX is a true (albeit slow) multi-tasking system, whereas PCVMS and PCUNIX aren't. Wendin makes note of this in their user's manual. Also, the guys who wrote both those products are VMS-grown. They tried to create UNIX from VMS system services. I personally prefer VMS to UNIX, however that hasn't stopped me from hacking on both. I can appreciate the effort that went into the toolbox. Really, that is quite a code job. Unfortunately, Wendin doesn't seem to understand that you can't write a decent UNIX using VMS system services. If it was easy, someone would have already attempted it. The Wendin guys are smart birds; they just need to do it RIGHT and CAREFULLY to make a nifty thing. Even using the toolbox to write PCVMS was not a smart idea. Maybe their yet-to-come-multi-tasking-replacement-for-dos-but-runs-dos-stuff will be better off in this regard. You need to consider that Wendin had not intended to produce either of those two products. They started with the toolbox and included PCUNIX and PCVMS as EXAMPLES of how to use the toolbox. Then they got the idea that those two could sell on their own. Only problem was that they were done shabbily. I'm sure, by now, that you've heard the rants and raves of why PCUNIX doesn't work properly. I can vouch for the same (and for PCVMS too). I wrote and posted a rather lengthy review of the PCVMS system about 6 months back. If you'd like a copy, please email me. If I get lots of response, maybe I'll post it again. However, in conclusion, if you're happy with it - great. It really isn't in the same ballpark, though. Read the MINIX book, is my suggestion. kibbles and bits, bruce bergman -- bang!- allegra!\ \ (619) 457-2700 x123 gould9! \ crash!--\ ihnp4! \ \ >--sdcsvax!---->--telesoft!bruceb (Bruce Bergman N7HAW) noscvax! / / scgvaxd! / sdencore!--/ TeleSoft, Inc. ucbvax! / / 5959 Cornerstone Court talaris!- San Diego, CA. 92121-9891 All opinions are mine. [ packet: n7haw @ n6atq-1, fido: 103!203 ]
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (05/10/87)
As quoted from <404@telesoft.UUCP> by bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot): +--------------- | that is quite a code job. Unfortunately, Wendin doesn't seem to understand | that you can't write a decent UNIX using VMS system services. If it was | easy, someone would have already attempted it. The Wendin guys are smart +--------------- Ever hear of Eunice? ++Brando -- Copyright (C) 1987 Brandon S. Allbery -- you can redistribute only if your recipients can. Brandon S. Allbery {decvax,cbatt,cbosgd}!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery Tridelta Industries {ames,mit-eddie,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery 7350 Corporate Blvd. necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.HARVARD.EDU Mentor, OH 44060 +01 216 255 1080 (also eddie.MIT.EDU)
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (05/12/87)
As quoted from <404@telesoft.UUCP> by bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot): +--------------- | that is quite a code job. Unfortunately, Wendin doesn't seem to understand | that you can't write a decent UNIX using VMS system services. If it was | easy, someone would have already attempted it. The Wendin guys are smart +--------------- In article <2493@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > Ever hear of Eunice? Yes, I've heard of Eunice. Bruce's comments hold. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa
dhb@rayssd.RAY.COM (David Brierley) (05/13/87)
In article <2493@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <404@telesoft.UUCP> by bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot): >+--------------- >| that is quite a code job. Unfortunately, Wendin doesn't seem to understand >| that you can't write a decent UNIX using VMS system services. If it was >| easy, someone would have already attempted it. The Wendin guys are smart >+--------------- > >Ever hear of Eunice? > >++Brando Yes I have heard of (and in fact have used) Eunice. It is the reason I agree with the original statement. -- David H. Brierley Raytheon Submarine Signal Division 1847 West Main Road Portsmouth, RI 02871 Phone: (401)-847-8000 x4073 Internet: dhb@rayssd.ray.com Uucp: {cbosgd, gatech, linus, mirror, necntc, uiucdcs} !rayssd!dhb
amamaral@elrond.CalComp.COM (Alan Amaral) (05/13/87)
In article <2493@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <404@telesoft.UUCP> by bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot): > +--------------- > | that is quite a code job. Unfortunately, Wendin doesn't seem to understand > | that you can't write a decent UNIX using VMS system services. If it was > | easy, someone would have already attempted it. The Wendin guys are smart > +--------------- > > Ever hear of Eunice? > > ++Brando Like he said, a DECENT UNIX using VMS system services... ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** ** Line to fool postnews into posting this reply ** -- uucp: ...decvax!elrond!amamaral I would rather be a phone: (603) 885-8075 fool than a king... us mail: Calcomp/Sanders DPD (PTP2-2D01) Hudson NH 03051-0908