mckay@princeton.UUCP (09/08/83)
As I eagerly await Radio Shack's devilery of OS-9 (a sort of almost Un*x with multiuser, multitasking capabilities) I was wondering if anyone out there had ever used OS-9. I believe it has been available of some time now on other 6809 micros. Any comments OS-9 users? Any comparisons between OS-9 and the other major OS available for the Coco, FLEX? One last query, I have had my Coco for about 3 weeks now and am really getting to like it, is there any interest in a 6809/coco subgroup of net.micro, say net.micro.coco or net.micro.6809? Waiting to replace TRaSh-dos, --Dwight McKay ...princeton!mckay
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/09/83)
I second the nomination of a separate TRS-80 CoCo group. With the advent of the availability of OS-9, there's bound to be lots of system-specific info that we CoConuts would like to share.
nfc@decvax.UUCP (Norman Commo) (09/09/83)
I have been using OS-9 for over a year now on a home brew 6809 system. It seems to run fairly well. The description of it that I would feel most comfortable with is "having a UNIX feel". Yes, it does have I/O redirection and piping, but there are some uglies when you forget and try to use . and .. in path names etc. Also, there's no wild carding. Still, it runs nice on the micro because it didn't try to be a close UNIX clone. It is written in assembler to keep modules small. I/O and files are stream, so look alike to the programmer, which is nice. Unlike FLEX, OS-9 imposes no formatting on files. Just like UNIX, you have a byte stream with nothing changed or filtered as you read the stream. Conclusion. I feel that it is much more sophisticated than FLEX but can be a lot more exasperating in use. Their Basic09 is really nice (if your into that schtick). Their C compiler is fine, but requires big memory, and you would most likely have to leave out the piping modules if you want to run it. Norm Commo decvax!nfc