mvadh@cbnews.att.com (andrew.d.hay) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.042109.25425@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) writes:
[]
"Right now, believe it or not, I have fallen under the beliefs of other
"long-term users. Namely that there is not all that much wrong with
"3.51m unix. There'd be too much lost by starting over again. I'm
"saying that as someone who uses tape, ethernet, voice, combo, and
"sometimes dos cards. Nobody has the specs for those things. So I'd
"end up losing what I have. No way, not after all I've laid out for
"them. For the things that our kernel is missing, like symlinks and
"UIPC, well, there's the hope of loadable drivers. And the same few
"are still cranking them out. Names like Mike Ditto, Alex Crain and
"David Herron. These are our kernel hackers. People,
"there are only a few who are skilled at kernel. Sure, anyone can
"write regular code, but stuff like drivers is different. Does anyone
"have not only the time and experience, but the machine to experiment
"on? I can't afford to use my one machine to do kernel testing. What
"happens if one trashes their disks?
this is exactly why i suggested we start with miniframe ctix 5.X. the
miniframe is a *very* close relative of the 3b1; binaries can be
ported, for example (are drivers also portable? thad?). i thought
that by diffing the src trees for ctix 5.X and 3.51m, we could easily
spot the hardware dependencies. this would reduce the porting job to
an editing job, which is something even i could do -- and i would come
out of it knowing a lot more about the kernel and kernel programming,
which was one of my major goals in this project/dream.
but response to my proposal has been sparse; i've only seen about a
half-dozen replies from people willing to commit money toward source
licenses.
oh well...
--
Andrew Hay +------------------------------------------------------+
Ragged Individualist | JAAAAAAANE! |
AT&T-BL Ward Hill MA | HOW DO YOU STOP THIS CRAZY THING? |
a.d.hay@att.com +------------------------------------------------------+jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.121309.5351@cbnews.att.com> mvadh@cbnews.att.com (andrew.d.hay) writes: >this is exactly why i suggested we start with miniframe ctix 5.X. the >miniframe is a *very* close relative of the 3b1; binaries can be >ported, for example (are drivers also portable? thad?). i thought >that by diffing the src trees for ctix 5.X and 3.51m, we could easily >spot the hardware dependencies. this would reduce the porting job to >an editing job, which is something even i could do -- and i would come >out of it knowing a lot more about the kernel and kernel programming, >which was one of my major goals in this project/dream. But you seem to forget one salient point. AT&T will not release the source code to a non-educational site. I had a nice long (3 hour) talk with Unix Licencing on Friday, and unless you're a college/university, you're SOL. And even if you *do* get source, it's held under the one-processor thingie. Next off,where you gonna get CTIX source? Scotty's gonna beam it down for you? :-) >but response to my proposal has been sparse; i've only seen about a >half-dozen replies from people willing to commit money toward source >licenses. I believe they quoted me (as a university person) $4000 for a source distribution. But first, I'd have to buy a source licence, if I didn't have one. Well, CUNY has one, so that's $$$,$$$ I don't have to worry about. But $4K is still a hell of a lot for a freaking tape. Then, it comes 9-track format; you'd need to get it onto something a 3b1 could read. >oh well... [going into musical mode] I quote Billy Joel (from an old song) Don't you know that only fools are satisfied. Dream on, but don't imagine they'll all come true. It's time we realize that the problems with distribution are going to be insurmountable for a bunch of guys (any gals out there??) doing this as a hobby. We're not going to invest mucho dollars in this, nor will we invest the time. It's a hobby, folks. Ain't nobody gonna make money off this. And Ma Bell has the bottom line of $$$. And a different question comes up. Just *what* do you want from SVR3 that we don't have? And I mean the kernel, not the utilities. Shouldn't the effort be to use what we have and build upon it? Why do we insist on reinventing the wheel (albeit a new and improved wheel)? j -- Jeffrey L. Bromberger System Operator---City College of New York---Science Computing Facility jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu jeffrey@ccnysci.BITNET Anywhere!{cmcl2,philabs,phri}!ccnysci!jeffrey
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/27/91)
I'd like to add my 2 cents. For the amount of work involved in upgrading the OS, it might be more efficient for people to buy a used Sun 3/50 or 3/60 for less than $2500 US. Then buy SunOS4.1 for whatever they are getting for it. At some point, you're going to hit the law of diminishing returns. Think about it, in a year or two you'll be seeing Sun 3s for less than $1000, if they're not already going that low. For what I want to do, 3.51m is good enough. When GNU Mach comes out, it might be fun to port it as an educational experience. Maybe that was only 1 cent worth? Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu