Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:6042 comp.os.mach:646 comp.os.minix:13502 comp.os.os9:1332
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun!duteca4!thomas
From: thomas@duteca (Thomas Okken)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.os.mach,comp.os.minix,comp.os.os9
Subject: Mach, Minix, OS/9 - are they any good?
Message-ID: <1133@duteca4.UUCP>
Date: 20 Nov 90 01:24:15 GMT
Reply-To: thomas@duteca.et.tudelft.nl (Thomas Okken)
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Lines: 19

I want to get unix on my Mac. If there were only A/UX, I'd have an easy time
choosing the way to do it, but I've heard of a number of alternatives:
Minix, Mach, OS/9. Are any of these systems any good? Specifically, do you
get a true multiuser, multitasking, virtual memory system with all the goodies
(mainly programming tools: cc, make, lex, yacc, etc.)?
Can true unix software be ported to these systems? In short, do any or all
of these systems constitute a true replacement for the real thing (A/UX)?

If anyone has something to say about this, I would like to hear from you.
I'm especially interested in your bad experiences: systems that are very
hard to get up and running, use huge amounts of disk space, problems getting
public domain software to compile, etc.

Please answer only by e-mail; I will post a summary to comp.sys.mac.misc.

To everyone who spends any fraction of their time answering questions like
these: thank you, thank you, thank you. I really appreciate it! :-) :-)

Thomas Okken (thomas@duteca.tudelft.nl)