Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!ulowell!swan!asherman From: asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: Re: How to modify the "kernel'? Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 90 00:13:22 GMT References: <6881.26e59640@jetson.uh.edu> <25786@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1802@tuvie> Sender: news@ul-cs.ulowell.edu Organization: CPE: University of Lowell -- Lowell, MA Lines: 86 In-reply-to: mike@tuvie's message of 10 Sep 90 11:41:23 GMT mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) writes: asherman@dino.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) writes: > * If you need to raise the number of process slots, you're out of luck! > All of these problems are directly related to the fact that HP/Apollo is > trying to turn Domain/OS into Unix. This is their greatest mistake, as > Domain/OS is 1000 times better than Unix. Wait! Just a moment! DomainOS to you seems to be Aegis! This is (fortunately) not the case! DomainOS is to be "an enhanced UNIX"! I quite Domain/OS is the culmination of the "Aegis-years". This IS the case. And, much of it worked better then. Actually the inetd concept works better as a multi- proccess. I cheer any attempt to make DomainOS more UNIX compatible as long as the good features of DomainOS are retained which are basically networking and What I was saying was that the Domains/OS ITSELF should not bother trying to be more Unix-like. Sure, you can do what you will to make the Mock- BSD and SysV environments as kind as possible, but why try to make Domain/OS more like Unix. Unix is about 10 years behind Domain/OS! CASE support. I can live without DM, but demise of the DM (which is soon to come, from what I hear) is a warning what will soon happen to DomainOS at large. And I can and will not welcome this. If DomainOS is killed, I guess we'd rather go Sun. The implementation of DomainOS is lousy, but the ideas behind it are _great_. So I guess Hpollo should not kill DomainOS, but rather fix the broken parts. No, the implimentations of the Unix-interfaces are lousy. But no one at Apollo notices this, because THEY DON'T USE THEM! daemons. Our gateway for example has 35 processes running _if_nobody_is_logged_on! This is good? [...] whereas in DomainOS all kinds of things do not work. Such as? Domain/OS, now, not the Unix-like environments. > I think that what they should do is just add one more supported > environment: > OSF/1! Would be nice, but eill not happen. I think there is a simple reason for this: HP currently has to support MS-DOS, DomainOS 68k, DomainOS Prism, HP PA, HP 68k machines. Also, I think, they have some proprietary OS as well. Now, I guess, HP would rather have two lines, MSDOS and _one_ UNIX line. They have already killed (or are doing it right now) DomainOS Prism and the next to fall will be DomainOS. It simply doesn't make economic sense to have 5 different kinds of OS. I was not talking about a new OS, but a new Domain/OS user/programmer environ- ment. I've used HP/UX. It's a lousy Unix port, and it should be tossed long before Domain/OS. > This would keep the standards-hounds happy, while letting people still get > real work done. Standards are necessary if you want to live in a heterogenous environment. I guess you won't buy a VCR if it isn't able to play some other manufacturer's cassettes. Same thing for computers! Sure, but I'd rather buy a VCR that played ALL manufacturer's cassettes. Besides, look at what standards have gotten us with VCRs. Beta is a LOT better than VHS. But, because VHS is THE STANDARD, Beta goes away (exept in a few areas out West where quality won out). I guess HPollo should think _twice_ about killing DomainOS. I know a lot of They sure should. the DM they will go Sun, because if they have to learn a new editor, it will be emacs, so that they are insulated from all further changes. And up-to-date GNU software is not easy to get for DomainOS.) I've got all the the latest for our machines. -AJS -- asherman@dino.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu Note that as of 7/18/90 that's asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is."