pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec18.180105.1974@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: In article <28286@amdcad.AMD.COM>, phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: [going back a bit...] > |>Is a BSD version of unix available for the PC (80386)? > |We went over this before, there is no such thing. A lot of System V > You must not have heard of System V.4. >...by God, if it's > not SunOS/BSD, it's good enough for me! Well, V.4 is NOT BSD. It has most of the facilities of BSD systems, but that's hardly the same. Here's why I make the distinction: V.4 attempts to provide a way to get you all the facilities of V.3, Xenix, and 4.? BSD. [ .... ] It's going to be interesting to see how a kernel > 1 Mb with virtual memory gets ported to a PC! (Note that Phil is making a distinction between 386 and PC.) A gambling sort of person ought to take that bet. In the PC world, nothing short of a 386 has enough horsepower or reasonable addressing capability to make V.4 a believable proposition...I wouldn't even try it on an AT (i.e., 286). All true, but I want to add two or three data points: 1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you. Somebody like Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially their work; I think many people would love a cheap 4.3BSD on a cheap 80286. I sure would. I think that many Universities would be interested in running 4.3BSD on cheapo 80286 clones. From what I remember the guys to ask for are at Rice University. If you have a Unix source license they are prepared to give you the sources. 2) You can have Mach on an 80386. Mach is totally 4.3BSD API compatible, and has quite a few nice tricks in addition. Ask CMU or Mt. Xinu for details. 3) Rumours have it that Sun or somebody that licensed SunOS did port SunOS 3, which is really 4.2BSD, to generic 386s. Now that the Sun386i is not selling terribly well, Sun could make a few quick bucks by selling binary SunOS for generic 386s. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (12/21/89)
pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an > 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. >...Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially > their work;... Whoa! If you want a commercial product, and you don't want to get flamed into an alternate reality, there's a lot more to it than just "redistrib- uting"! You have to provide documentation and support, fix bugs, etc. It's not a small undertaking. >...I think many people would love a cheap 4.3BSD on a > cheap 80286. I sure would. I think that many Universities would > be interested in running 4.3BSD on cheapo 80286 clones... I might like one too, for the machine at home, but I think the commercial reality is that it's too easy and too cheap to get into a 386 machine for there to be a large enough market for a 286 system nowadays. I think Grandi is right in the general sense that there's a fair university market for cheap UNIX boxes, and BSD tends to be preferred in universities. But I really think the 386 (or at least the 386SX) is the processor of choice for such a system. That limits 286 interest to a declining population of existing machines. > 2) You can have Mach on an 80386. Mach is totally 4.3BSD API > compatible, and has quite a few nice tricks in addition. Ask CMU > or Mt. Xinu for details. CMU says they use it internally, but they don't make it available outside (as they do with the VAX, Sun, or RT versions). Mt. Xinu hasn't announced anything for the 386 yet (as far as I know), tho I'd be surprised if they didn't pick it up in their "second release" they've talked about late next year. Anyone have any better info on Mach-for-386 availability? > 3) Rumours have it that Sun or somebody that licensed SunOS did > port SunOS 3, which is really 4.2BSD, to generic 386s. Now that > the Sun386i is not selling terribly well, Sun could make a few > quick bucks by selling binary SunOS for generic 386s. Again, something like that is NOT quick bucks...you don't just toss things together and start shipping. There's a fair hardware difference between a 386i and "any old AT clone" that has to be supported in an open-market 386 system. Beyond that, there's an interesting question of whether Sun is interested in the 386 at all, given the recent announcement that the next upgrade of SunOS won't appear on the 386i. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
cassidy@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Cassidy Lynar) (12/25/89)
In article <1989Dec20.202300.874@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an >> 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... > >The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming >along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working >system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. > >>...Everex or ISC should contact them and redistribute commercially >> their work;... Yea, right! ISC distribute a working product? It would seem to me that once again, unpaid, college students have produced a reasonably working product... -cassidy ps. Sheesh! I am in a flaming mood today :) But it feels great with the temps outside being 20 or so :)
pat@orac.pgh.pa.us (Pat Barron) (12/26/89)
In article <1989Dec20.202300.874@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>...1) Some University guys have ported 4.3BSD to an 80286 (yes, an >> 80286). They claim it works nicely, thank you... > >The last general update I'd seen on this project was that it was coming >along, but slowly. (It's being done by volunteers.) They have a working >system but (again, last I heard) there was still plenty to do. I keep hearing about these folks who did the 4.3 port to the 80286, but I've never seen any mention of who they are. Does anyone know who exactly is doing the port? I'd like to get in touch with them. Thanks! --Pat. -- Pat Barron Internet: pat@orac.pgh.pa.us - or - orac!pat@gateway.sei.cmu.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!apexepa!sei!orac!pat - or - ...!pitt!darth!orac!pat