Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!ncsuvx!news
From: rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: UNIX on the Apple II?
Message-ID: <1990Jan20.192243.17076@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 90 19:22:43 GMT
References: <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <11977@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Jan18.181506.6059@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <11988@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher)
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 50

In article <11988@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>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.

Actually, I have.  I just recently worked on a low pressure liquid 
chromatography system used for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.
I've also worked on computer control of textile production equipment
that had to measure and cut yarn blown through a tube at near-supersonic
speed.  It is poor design to make a system totally dependent on the 
eccentricities of a particular hardware design.  It makes upgrading and
expansion difficult.  Time critical operations can be isolated with
programable logic controllers which in turn are controlled by the main
computer (possibly using your Fortran program).  The type of the central
computer is irrelevant, so long as its performance is within the range
necessary for the overall system. 


>
>>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".

Easy is a relative term, porting UNIX is easier than writing a new
operating system in assembler.

>
>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.

That would depend on the quality of the implementation.

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

You may well be correct on this point.  That's a tough call.  If 
Apple won't do a multitasking system, somebody else will have to.
We are looking into a port of Minix that would use the GS/OS file
system and memory manager, thus allowing some compatibility with
existing windowing applications.

Rick Fincher
rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu