os9@cbdkc1.UUCP (09/23/87)
OS-9 Discussions Tuesday, September 22nd 1987 Volume 3 : Issue 15
Today's Topics:
Microware Forum on Compuserve
OS-9 compared to UNIX - response
/t1 Device driver
OS/9 for Sinclair QL?
OK, OK, OK... So, things have been a little slow around here. ("But, ALL
SUMMER!?" You ask.) We've begun to get some exciting things and submissions
are picking back up.
As a reminder, based on the responses to the poll I will NOT be including
sources as a part of these digests. I WILL accept sources, archive them,
and announce their availability. There might occasionally be a package
distributed over comp.os.os9 when requests deluge me. I WOULD appreciate
a volunteer from Europe and one from Australia handling the archives requests
for those areas. It pains me to send more than one copy of a large posting
internationally when a single digest distribution would suffice.
I have received the following submissions over the summer:
Framegrabber - Imagewise digitizer to OS/9 - Jim Omura
Bison - GNU equivalent of yacc - (5 files) - Jim Omura
MakPatch / Ipatch Utilities - uuencoded and ar'd - Pete Lyall
Tsedit 80 Column Patch - uuencoded and ar'd patch (use previous) - Pete Lyall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Jun 1987 0142-CDT (Monday)
From: sun!mcrware!kim (Kim Kempf)
Subject: Microware Forum on Compuserve
>> In: OS-9 Discussions Volume 3 : Issue 4, From: ihnp4!ihwpt!knudsen, Subject:
>> Which BBS's support OS9?
> You'll also find that some Tandy and MW employees are on (unofficially,
> alas!), but they do listen and I've seen suggestions implemented.
Those OS-9 fans that hang out on Compuserve will be interested to note that
Microware (officially) will be going online on or about July 1. The Microware
forum will initially be "read only". We'll be placing information there such
as bug reports, application and release notes, and answering questions of
general interest. You can send e-mail to the Microware customer support
department and they'll post the replies. Along with the established OS-9
forum already operating, the Microware forum will make Compuserve the place
to be for OS-9 information.
Date: 22 Jun 1987 0143-CDT (Monday)
------------------------------
From: sun!mcrware!kim (Kim Kempf)
Subject: OS-9 compared to UNIX - response
In response to the OS-9/Uniplus UNIX question: <From: witters@fluke.uucp>
>OS/9 doesn't support search paths. All executable programs must
>reside in a single "execution directory". This is dangerous for
>multi-user systems because any user can wipe out the system utilities.
>
The shell supplied Version 2.0 of OS-9/68k does provide a "search path"
facility. OS-9 has a concept of "execution directory" (analogous to the
"current directory") that is used to search for executable files. Since
this directory is "known" by the process, a directory search path search
is not required to load a module for execution. The shell search path
facility provides alternate directory paths to search if the file is not
in the execution directory.
>UNIPLUS UNIX supports search paths. Executable programs may reside in
>any directory.
>
OS-9 executes program modules, not files. A module directory containing
information about all modules in memory. When executing a program, the
module directory is searched first. If that fails, the execution directory
if searched for a file of the same name as the desired module. The shell
(really modloadp()) then searches any other paths given in the PATH environment
variable.
>OS/9 provides a C compiler and a line oriented text editor for
>developing software, and that's all.
>
OS-9 now comes with uMacs, an emacs-like screen editor.
>Both OS/9 and UNIPLUS UNIX support tree structured file systems.
>
Except that OS-9 uses a *truly* tree structured file system. UNIX (any that
I know of) use a flat i-node based allocation scheme that limits the number
and size of files on the filesystem.
>You can "lock" an application program into memory with OS/9 so it won't
>get swapped out. This is handy for real time applications.
>
It's not an option that programs lock into memory to execute. OS-9 has no
swapping facilities as that can cause response time problems if a process is
ready to run but can't because its swapped out. The usually solution is to
"lock" all programs with real-time constraints into memory. OS-9 enforces this
by design, thereby eliminating any such problems.
Date: 23 Jun 87 03:22:36 GMT
------------------------------
From: ww0n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Lloyd Wimer, III)
Subject: /t1 Device driver
I'm running OS-9 Level I V2.00.00 (haven't scraped together enough cash
for Level II) on my CoCo 3. Something which has bothered me for quite
some time is the fact that the special characters such as ^C, ^E, etc.
are ignored when logged-in through /t1 (the bit-banger port). I know the
characters are making it through since "dump /t1" shows them, but the
RS-232 driver (?) does not seem to be sending the proper signals to
abort the process, halt output, etc. Exactly the same behavior
occurs on my CoCo 1. Has anyone else experienced this? Is there a fix?
Is it worth fixing?
Thanks for any help,
Walt Wimer Arpanet: ww0n+@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University Bitnet: ww0n+%andrew.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA
Date: 24 Jun 87 12:46:11 GMT
------------------------------
From: rutgers!ames!pyramid!osiris!phil (Philip Kos)
Subject: OS/9 for Sinclair QL?
Keywords: Sinclair 68008 OSK
I've seen a couple of ads for the new Sinclair machine, called the QL...
it's running a 68008 with what seems to be a proprietary DOS. Anyway, it
looks like a neat little machine and is certainly inexpensive (one ad says
$249 with a monochrome monitor), so I've been thinking about biting the
bullet and finally buying a home computer.
(Lo Tek is fun but I'm really not crude... :-)
Anyway II, I was thinking that since it's a 68K cpu (68008 actually), it
might just be possible to get OSK up on it, which would be real nice. Do
any of you (particularly maybe Kim Kempf or Jim Omura) know anything about
an '008 version of OSK? How about the possibility of getting a "normal"
version of OSK up on an '008 machine with (probably) some odd device
controllers? If we're talking about a port-pak, I might not want to get
into the extra expense, but otherwise the concept is pretty intriguing.
...!decvax!decuac!\ Phil Kos
...!seismo!mimsy!aplcen!osiris!phil The Johns Hopkins Hospital
...!allegra!/ Baltimore, MD
-------------------------------------
The views expressed in OS-9 Discussions are those of the individual authors
only. Copies of digests are available by mail request.
------
Moderator: John Daleske cbosgd!cbdkc1!daleske daleske@cbdkc1.ATT.COM
Submissions should go to: cbosgd!os9 os9@cbosgd.ATT.COM
Comments to the moderator cbosgd!os9-request os9-request@cbosgd.ATT.COM
*********************
End of OS-9 Discussions
*********************