jochenw@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) (06/11/91)
Hi all!
I am planning on buying one of the packages mentioned and was even pretty sure that
MINIX would be the one. But after reading through the contents list I wasn't so sure
anymore. As far as I can judge, Coherent might be the system of choice for those who
just want to "use" it, but who are not interested in modifying the system itself. So,
what do YOU think? For an electronics engineering student wanting to "prepare"
programs for bigger UNIX machines on his "tiny" 386SX at home, what system will do
best?! If you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know. On the other hand:
if this subject has been covered ad nauseam already, would someone please send me a
recap of the discussion, please?
Many thanx in advance,
Jochen.
--
Jochen Wolters | jochenw@cip-s02.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taniwha is waiting for me just below the surface so bright..."
Split Enznheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) (06/12/91)
In article <jochenw.676640872@rama> jochenw@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) writes: >Hi all! > > I am planning on buying one of the packages > mentioned and was even pretty sure that >MINIX would be the one. I'm planning to buy one, too... and have pretty well settled on MINIX, myself. >But after reading through the contents list I wasn't so sure >anymore. As far as I can judge, Coherent might be the >system of choice for those who >just want to "use" it, but who are not interested >in modifying the system itself. From all that I've been able to gather, this was the same conclusion I reached. Re-compiling the MINIX kernal to make changes (or just to run it itself) might not be so much fun. %) Coherent will probably be easier to get running out of the box. > So, >what do YOU think? For an electronics engineering student >wanting to "prepare" >programs for bigger UNIX machines on his "tiny" 386SX at home, > what system will do >best?! I'm a computer science student myself and WANT my own big UNIX machine. However, I'll have to settle for a 386SX running MINIX (which will probably come quite close... closer than Coherent). The main reason that I would choose MINIX over Coherent is the 386 support which is available for MINIX and not for Coherent. Coherent, which does not take advantage of the special features of the 386 in its current version, can not run many large UNIX programs. Also, there seems to be more things happening with MINIX. Checkout comp.os.minix.. it's much more active than comp.os.coherent. >If you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know. <so that I don't get flamed> Coherent is a very good product. For the casual user who want's to learn what UNIX is all about, it's perfect. I think it fills a niche that MINIX doesn't. And which product to buy depends entirely on what you want to do. [I'll probably buy Coherent when the version with 386 support comes out late next year... I can't wait till then, so I'll buy MINIX now] Finally... a caveat. I've tried neither system before, so you might want to get some views from actual users. I've just been reading both newsgroups and have been an interested observer for some time. -Norm >-- >Jochen Wolters | jochenw@cip-s02.informatik.rwth-aachen.de >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Taniwha is waiting for me just below the surface so bright..." > Split Enz -- // Norman Heu \X/ nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca!nheu
dve@zooid.uucp (David Mason) (06/12/91)
From: jochenw@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) > I am planning on buying one of the packages mentioned and was even pretty su >MINIX would be the one. But after reading through the contents list I wasn't s >anymore. As far as I can judge, Coherent might be the system of choice for tho >just want to "use" it, but who are not interested in modifying the system itse I think that's a pretty good summary. Minix has more support from many people out there but you might spend more time trying to get the thing running than actually using it. Whereas Coherent runs pretty well but it doesn't come with source code like Minix. After a period of time playing with Minix you'll have a deeper understanding of the internals of a Unix-like operating system. After a period of time with Coherent you'll have spent more time playing with Unix-like applications and the system utilities.
joachim@jrix.radig.de (Joachim Riedel) (06/16/91)
nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) writes: >Coherent will probably be easier to get running out of the box. That's one advantage. One of my friends bought MINIX, was unable to install it (no, not a "silly user", a very good C-programmer) and now has Coherent. Never had problems in installing. >>what do YOU think? For an electronics engineering student >>wanting to "prepare" >>programs for bigger UNIX machines on his "tiny" 386SX at home, Coherent seems to be enough for an electronics engineer like me. >The main reason that I would choose MINIX over Coherent is the >386 support which is available for MINIX and not for Coherent. I still believe that the 386 support in MINIX is still "unofficial", the version modified by Bruce Evans. Maybe I'm wrong and there is now an "official" 386 version available. I think that Coherent also will have 386 support in the near future and it's now 66 % Percent the price of MINIX (here in Germany !) (Coherent: 198.-DM MINIX: 298.-DM) >Also, there seems to be more things happening with MINIX. >Checkout comp.os.minix.. it's much more active than >comp.os.coherent. comp.os.coherent is a new group, installed in 1991. I don't know when comp.os.minix was created but at least it's 15 months older. And most questions there are about problems installing MINIX, problems with Devices or whatever. I myself never had bigger problems with different hardware I used with Coherent. And with MINIX you have to depend on the Net-support because MINIX has less essential tools. Nevertheless MINIX has really several advantages. But I won't believe it because I am a Coherent fanatic. Cheers, Joachim +---------------------------------------+-------+-------------------+-------+ | Joachim Riedel | @ @ | Don't worry, | @ @ | | Geschwister-Scholl-Strasse 48 | \_/ | keep smiling | \_/ | | D-6050 Offenbach am Main +-------+-------------------+-------+ | Tel. +49 69 85 62 25 | joachim@jrix.radig.de | +---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
rlwald@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert L. Wald) (06/17/91)
In article <nheu.0259@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca> nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) writes: >In article <jochenw.676640872@rama> jochenw@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) writes: >>Hi all! >> >> I am planning on buying one of the packages >> mentioned and was even pretty sure that >>MINIX would be the one. > >I'm planning to buy one, too... and have pretty well settled on MINIX, >myself. > >>But after reading through the contents list I wasn't so sure >>anymore. As far as I can judge, Coherent might be the >>system of choice for those who >>just want to "use" it, but who are not interested >>in modifying the system itself. I just ordered Coherent (which was delayed a week (they said) since they weren't going to ship it until 3.2 came out. I'm going to take a look at it, but the more that I think about it, the more I think that I will probably return it and get Minix. Is there *anything* that Coherent has that Minix doesn't? Is it supposed to be more reliable? I notice that Minix only supports 3 users, anyone know where the limitation is? The main problem is that Minix will support large model, and Coherent won't until next year. I don't understand this, frankly. Large model works on 8086's, let alone 80286's, so why can't coherent support it? Is it because of a lack of real memory protection in an 80286? Then why does XENIX work? Also, the lack of TCP/IP support. Is there any reason why this couldn't be done with a device driver and a server running in user mode (not within the kernel)? Anyone know if there's SLIP source available anywhere, in case I decide to try this? -Rob -- "Suddenly the Earth Coincidence Control Office (ECCO) removed my penis and handed it to me ... I shouted, "Who's in charge up there, a bunch of crazy kids?" -John Lilly rlwald@phoenix.princeton.edu
kirkenda@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Steve Kirkendall) (06/18/91)
In article <10834@idunno.Princeton.EDU> rlwald@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert L. Wald) writes: > I just ordered Coherent (which was delayed a week (they said) since >they weren't going to ship it until 3.2 came out. I'm going to take >a look at it, but the more that I think about it, the more I think >that I will probably return it and get Minix. Is there *anything* >that Coherent has that Minix doesn't? Is it supposed to be >more reliable? I notice that Minix only supports 3 users, anyone >know where the limitation is? One console + two serial ports = three users. > The main problem is that Minix will support large model, and Coherent >won't until next year. I don't understand this, frankly. Large >model works on 8086's, let alone 80286's, so why can't coherent support >it? Is it because of a lack of real memory protection in an >80286? Then why does XENIX work? MINIX DOES NOT SUPPORT LARGE MODEL PROGRAMS! Standard Minix is limited to 64k+64k, just like Coherent. In fact, its standard compiler is much worse that Coherent's so the 64k limit is even more... um... limiting. Minix can be patched to support 386 small model, which is fairly roomy. Coherent will (we are told) soon support the 386 too. However, neither operating system is ever expected to break the 64k barrier on anything less than a 386. They *could*, obviously, but it would be difficult and time-consuming... and consequently much more expensive. You mentioned Xenix? Here's a wacky suggestion: buy both of them. Coherent is more stable and more professional. Minix has source code. So why not use selected Minix programs under Coherent? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Kirkendall kirkenda@cs.pdx.edu Grad student at Portland State U.
nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) (06/18/91)
In article <10834@idunno.Princeton.EDU> rlwald@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert L. Wald) writes: > > [many good questions about Coherent and Minix > which I don't have answers to] > > Is there *anything* that Coherent has that Minix doesn't? Is it supposed to be > more reliable? I haven't run either system, but the impression I've gathered from over the net is that Coherent is easier to run out of the box. Coherent also comes with more utilities out of the box. Minix has many more utilities available, but you'll need to FTP them from all over the place. And if you can't FTP.. -Norm > >-Rob > >-- >"Suddenly the Earth Coincidence Control Office (ECCO) removed my >penis and handed it to me ... I shouted, "Who's in charge up there, >a bunch of crazy kids?" -John Lilly >rlwald@phoenix.princeton.edu -- // Norman Heu \X/ nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca!nheu
dfenyes@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu (David Fenyes) (06/18/91)
In article <10834@idunno.Princeton.EDU> rlwald@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert L. Wald) writes: > >is there *anything* >that Coherent has that Minix doesn't? Is it supposed to be >more reliable? Coherent has more tools, and a C compiler that handles larger files and produces smaller code than that available for <=286 Minix. At least I've compiled code on coherent that was supposed to be too much for ACK C & asld. It has a debugger. It also has quite good telephone support, in addition to the MINIX software base, which is trivial to port in most instances. Coherent also has "loadable" device drivers that don't require recompiling the kernel. > The main problem is that Minix will support large model, and Coherent >won't until next year. I don't understand this, frankly. Large >model works on 8086's, let alone 80286's, so why can't coherent support >it? Is it because of a lack of real memory protection in an >80286? Then why does XENIX work? The "Large Model" you speak of is the Microsoft term for multiple <64K code and data segments. XENIX uses this, but can't run software with large arrays or routines (Routines that large may not exist outside of monster fortran code). It takes a lot of acrobatics to implement this, and the result is slow. Minix offers nothing of the sort. 386 addressing is not subject to 64K segment size, so processes may be arbitrarily large with no special code. This is what 386 minix is, and what 386 coherent will be. David Fenyes dfenyes@thesis1.med.uth.tmc.edu University of Texas Medical School Houston, Texas
nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun15.182344.1950@jrix.radig.de> joachim@jrix.radig.de (Joachim Riedel) writes: >nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) writes: > >>The main reason that I would choose MINIX over Coherent is the >>386 support which is available for MINIX and not for Coherent. > >I still believe that the 386 support in MINIX is still "unofficial", >the version modified by Bruce Evans. Maybe I'm wrong and there is now >an "official" 386 version available. It's still not official.. but at least it is available NOW for those who can't wait. >I think that Coherent also will have 386 support in the near future >and it's now 66 % Percent the price of MINIX (here in Germany !) >(Coherent: 198.-DM MINIX: 298.-DM) US prices are $99 for Coherent and $169 for Minix if I'm not mistaken. >>Also, there seems to be more things happening with MINIX. >>Checkout comp.os.minix.. it's much more active than >>comp.os.coherent. > >comp.os.coherent is a new group, installed in 1991. I don't know when >comp.os.minix was created but at least it's 15 months older. And most questions >there are about problems installing MINIX, problems with Devices or whatever. Yes, comp.os.coherent is a new group and that's probably one reason why it isn't very active. Yes, most questions (in general) are about problems. But there is a fair bit of discussion about enhancing MINIX in comp.os.minix. There isn't too much of that here in comp.os.coherent (yet?). >I myself never had bigger problems with different hardware I used with >Coherent. And with MINIX you have to depend on the Net-support because MINIX >has less essential tools. Net-support is the best kind though! ;) >Nevertheless MINIX has really several advantages. But I won't believe it >because I am a Coherent fanatic. I'm just happy there's finally more than one flavour of cheap unix available and pity all those still running Msdos. -Norm > >Cheers, > >Joachim > >+---------------------------------------+-------+-------------------+-------+ >| Joachim Riedel | @ @ | Don't worry, | @ @ | >| Geschwister-Scholl-Strasse 48 | \_/ | keep smiling | \_/ | >| D-6050 Offenbach am Main +-------+-------------------+-------+ >| Tel. +49 69 85 62 25 | joachim@jrix.radig.de | >+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ -- // Norman Heu \X/ nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca!nheu