Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!crackers!m2c!ulowell!hawk!sgerakin
From: sgerakin@hawk.ulowell.edu (Steve Gerakines)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Where is Minix headed?!?!?!?!?!?!
Message-ID: <1391@ul-cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 90 08:52:22 GMT
References: <4936@crash.cts.com> <33393@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <463@pdxgate.UUCP>
Sender: news@ul-cs.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: sgerakin@hawk.ulowell.edu (Steve Gerakines)
Organization: University of Lowell, CS Dept.
Lines: 63
Nntp-Posting-Host: hawk

> [stuff snipped]
>                                 If things are going to be added to Minix,
>perhaps something that should be asked is what is it about Minix that makes
>people decide to use it?  One of my major reasons was to get away from the
>severe restrictions of APPLE and their bloody Macintosh operating system (which
>is excellent-- if you love GUIs) and get into something that was portable.

From what I hear from a few of my Mac developer friends, I wouldn't be
surprised if that was the popular reason for picking it up.  However, I
think there is more to it than that.  Minix gives you the opportunity to
shape your own personalized operating system.  I love programming, so what
was most appealing to me about Minix was that I could change whatever I
wanted.  If something doesn't work the way I like it, I change it.

Someone previously mentioned a "black hole" where things are talked about
but aren't written.  As I said, I believe a lot of changes made to Minix
are considered personal or system specific, which is why many "great
new enhancements" never reach the net.  This newsgroup helps dispense
ideas for the Minix community.  There are many more Minix users than
creators, and I doubt there are many people that devote full-time to Minix,
so it makes sense that there's some time delay between ideas and
finished products.

>Most of the additions that you suggested are for the PC version of Minix.  What
>about the rest of us out here that are not using PC's?

Generally Minix upgrades and revisions are all applied to the IBM version
of Minix, and changes for the rest of us usually follow.  Other than system
specific stuff, there's a great effort to keep the non-IBM community up
to snuff with the latest IBM version.  The respective people should be
commended for their efforts.  When I first started reading this newsgroup,
I too thought a lot of people were IBM biased, but after all, that is
what Minix was originally written for.  Even if people present their ideas
in IBM form, I know the rest of us are not forgotten.

>Hopefully people will decide that their additions to Minix will not be for any
>particular machine, and will (hopefully) apply to the majority of the Minix
>family.

For the most part that's usually how it is.  But just because Minix is
supposed to be considered a general operating system and not machine
specific, I would hope no one would feel apprehensive about writing
things to take advantage of one machine's abilities.  It's silly to
believe that everything posted here will be for the entire community.
Operating Systems that are designed with the philosophy "to be everything
to everyone" are doomed to failure.

Personally I like Minix and its' "small is simple" philosophy.  It gives
people a building block to go from, and expand as they see fit.  I'm
sure Dr. Tanenbaum is well aware that Minix is growing beyond the
classroom.  I just hope that a POSIX compliant Minix doesn't forget
its more simple ancestors.

>My more than two bits worth.

My three bits + checksum.  :-)

-Steve Gerakines

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Usenet: sgerakin@hawk.ulowell.edu       | SteveNet: GENESIS:Steve2         |
| UUCP:   ...!harvard!swan!sgerakin@hawk  | "My kingdom for a smoke!!!"      |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------