peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <1421@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu.UUCP (Greg Harp) writes: > Be realistic. No Unix running on the same CPU will compare with a real > time OS like AmigaDOS. You'll have to check out OS/9 some time. It'll help you keep that foot out of your mouth. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.112709.8280@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <1421@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu.UUCP (Greg Harp) writes: }> Be realistic. No Unix running on the same CPU will compare with a real }> time OS like AmigaDOS. } }You'll have to check out OS/9 some time. It'll help you keep that foot out }of your mouth. OS/9 is a Unix? I was under the impression that OS/9 was another real- time OS with some Unix-like features (in the same way that the Amiga OS is a real-time OS with some Unix-like features). I really don't think you could call OS/9 a Unix OS. Lance -- Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+ (ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here | NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury | Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/09/91)
In <361@ncmicro.lonestar.org> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes: >OS/9 is a Unix? I was under the impression that OS/9 was another real- >time OS with some Unix-like features (in the same way that the Amiga OS >is a real-time OS with some Unix-like features). While OS-9 is NOT a real-time UNIX, bsd sources DO seem to compile with little, if any modification (and run). Longer ago than I care to admit, I put umodem on an OS-9/68K, since kermit wasn't out, yet. OS-9 does use volumes, like AmigaDOS (and VMS.... just about everybody but UNIX, I think), but at least "/" is the root of the volume (I HATE the person who made that the same as UNIX ".." under AmigaDOS ";-)"). Almost no one needs a real-time UNIX, although some applications would be a bit more robust, under it. Snappy, reliable I/O is a MUST, though. It is inexcusable to drop characters, even at 38400, on any baud rate supported by the driver, for instance. What are nice about OS-9 and AmigaDOS are the rapid user response, IMHO, and the small code sizes for common applications. AmigaDOS has almost no features in common with any UNIX that I have used. There are some utilities with similar names, and functions. Most compiler vendors have included UNIX-style library routines (over and above the C standard library functions), but the OS, itself, is not terribly like UNIX, for good, or ill. The file system is different, and for a personal computer, better with FFS. The IPC mechanisms are not quite same where they do overlap, and there are different sets. Scheduling is similar, in that both have prioritized round-robin, but the aging mech- anisms are different. The AmigaDOS, and OS-9, kernels are robust enough, and rich enough in features that UNIX-like functionality is supportable. AmigaDOS had shared libraries before UNIX, for instance. Given the grief that many of us suffered under 1.0 and 1.1, I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off with C= buying OS-9/68K, which was reasonably stable, at the time, then adding the part of AmigaDOS that really shines, Intuition, and the support for the graphics chips, as Microware has added graphics support to OS-9, finally. Please, no flames, it's just an idle thought. Dan Taylor
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <947@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: > Given the grief that many of us suffered under 1.0 and 1.1, I wonder if > we wouldn't have been better off with C= buying OS-9/68K, which was > reasonably stable, at the time, then adding the part of AmigaDOS that > really shines, Intuition, and the support for the graphics chips, as > Microware has added graphics support to OS-9, finally. Please, no > flames, it's just an idle thought. I asked about that, at the time. The response I got indicated that nobody at Amiga had ever heard of Microware. Weird. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.004526.717@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <947@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >> Given the grief that many of us suffered under 1.0 and 1.1, I wonder if >> we wouldn't have been better off with C= buying OS-9/68K, which was >> reasonably stable, at the time, then adding the part of AmigaDOS that >> really shines, Intuition, and the support for the graphics chips, as >> Microware has added graphics support to OS-9, finally. Please, no >> flames, it's just an idle thought. > >I asked about that, at the time. The response I got indicated that nobody at >Amiga had ever heard of Microware. > >Weird. >Peter da Silva. `-_-' Not quite accurate. In the days when we were looking for a replacement for the original CAOS (we had the tripos port in hand, but...) I talked to the folks at Microware (since I was already talking to them about another project using an OS9 varient.). At that time their unit pricing even for large volumes made their operating system uneconomical for us to use. Which was a shame. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "The best way to do video effects on a Mac is to use an Amiga." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.