Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!rit!cci632!tvf From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: extension to Bruce"s 386 kernel and MINIX Message-ID: <40563@cci632.UUCP> Date: 8 Oct 90 14:16:39 GMT References: <32696@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Reply-To: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., An STC Icon, Rochester, NY Lines: 81 In article <32696@nigel.ee.udel.edu> cracraft@ai.mit.edu writes: >I've had a bad experience with the 386 kernel and associated >utilities (cppmake, db). I'm "half way" through this process right now. It is NOT for the faint of heart. > cppmake simply would not build. Under You have to work over the code a little bit. That is clearly spelled out in all of the README's for all of the pieces. >And the one little comment >"unless everything is in place the 386 binaries (presumably >bcc, as, sc, ld? -- please state!) won't work". Again, OS building is NOT for the faint of heart. This is an OS that is under development, probably at alpha level of release, maybe beta (no, pretty much alpha). >I feel the >documentation should plainly state so there's no room for >doubt "These four utilities are 32 bit mode (assuming 32 >bit distribution included) and will not run until the >changes made in mx386/README have been made." or something >like this. Actually, I thought this was pretty clear. Granted, I took a lot of time reading over the code and stuff to make sure that I knew what I was doing, and I'm only doing a piece here, a bit there, but I'm in no rush. Besides, Bruce is on the network, and he has been more than willing to sift through comments/problems about this process (including trying to figure out his problem when the reason was actually my incorrect set-up because I rushed one piece - this is the real cost of support, the wasted time). And besides, you do get the source to bcc.c so you can have sc/as/ld where you want them, if you don't like /local/bin. BTW, I think he was referring to the sources and libraries for building the 32-bit kernel/mm/fs/etc. >The entire 386 kernel installation notes ran a total of >a page or two and really lacked depth. Separate programs like >cppmake had their own opaque documentation and no "What if >when there's an error" section. Actually, if I have time, I hope to flesh out some of this documentation a little more. I will give you this - if Earl Chew created cppmake, then he did slack off a little on the documentation. His documentation for other software he's developed has been excellent (e.g., shoelace). >For an installation of this magnitude of a change to an OS, there >should be very precise notes about exactly what steps to follow, AND >the author should have tried it already on various configurations to >ensure that it works. Even the commercial System V Unix vendors don't have the finances/time to do this (or so they claim, anyway), and they get paid for doing it. I don't believe that either Bruce or Earl get a dime for their Minix stuff (please show us a payslip if I'm wrong, guys! :-) ). In fact, that's why I've decided to get out of the commercial System V Unix world for my home system - in my experience, support was not all that good. Now I've been on the support side of the phone, and let me tell you all I can appreciate how hard a job it is. The level of support you get is dependent on two factors - the investment that a company puts into it, and the desire of the support personnel to make it work (even if the company doesn't give them what they need). Prentice-Hall puts nada into Minix support, and I don't necessarily blame them. We're support, folks, every one of us who decides that we're going to run Minix on our home systems for whatever reason. If you can pony up to that, fine. If you can't, then I suggest you get another OS for your system. For what Bruce's package lacks in documentation, it is more than made up by his availability. I for one appreciate that. >To repeat: installation of Evans' 386 kernel with Chew's cppmake >failed miserably on a Minix 1.5 (IBM PC AT clone). It was very >disappointing. I'm sorry you had a hard time. I think you expected too much, namely a "drop it in and it works" system. That was one thing that was very clear in the documentation - this isn't an appliance OS. -- Thomas V. Frauenhofer, WA2YYW ccicpg!cci632!tvf@uunet.uu.net tvf1477@ma.isc.rit.edu "Time's a-wasting, speedy!" - the turtle (to Bugs Bunny)