Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: UNIX on the Apple II?
Message-ID: <11988@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 20 Jan 90 16:15:44 GMT
References: <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <11977@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Jan18.181506.6059@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 40

In article <1990Jan18.181506.6059@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes:
>any computer that can run the fortran program within the limits of its
>design can control the refinery and "manufacture" gasoline.

Wrong again.  Apparently you've ever implemented any system that has to
deal intimately with hardware details.

>The whole point in writing a large portion of UNIX in C was so it could be
>easily ported as the original poster suggested.

A port of UNIX to a new hardware platform is by no means "easy".

>Why? A subset like MINIX would give the small computer user many of the
>features they want from UNIX without the overhead of supporting a bunch of
>useless mini-computer features.

MINIX is no a subset of UNIX, it is a different product altogether.
The fellow originally asked about UNIX.  Even a MINIX port would be
difficult, but less so than genuine UNIX.

>>particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is.
>This is relative, the Cray has an "awful" price, as do many of the "REAL"
>computers you suggest.

I am applying the standard of what a UNIX implementation would really
require, and by that standard the Apple II hardware is truly awful.

>>My advice is to forget it.  If you want UNIX, buy a real computer.

My advice is that of a UNIX guru whose personal computer is an Apple
IIGS and who has looked into what it would take to implement UNIX on
the IIGS.

That is not to say that SOME decently designed operating system
for the IIGS wouldn't be feasible, but it wouldn't be UNIX and thus
(without Apple's support) would be hard to justify the requisite
investment of effort.

I suggest that IIGS efforts would be much more wisely invested in
developing improvements to the GS/OS environment.