Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!sharkey!wa8tzg!wwm
Newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1
Subject: Re: Not again (BSD etc. ports)
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.180427.812@wa8tzg.mi.org>
From: wwm@wa8tzg.mi.org (Bill Meahan)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 18:04:27 GMT
References: <094715.17868@timbuk.cray.com> <1991Mar21.163810.27903@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> <1316@hico2.UUCP>
Organization: What, ME Organized?
Keywords: port BSD minix forget it
Lines: 75

In article <1316@hico2.UUCP> kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) writes:
>In article <1991Mar21.163810.27903@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>, jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) writes:
>> In article <1228@organpipe.UUCP> tom@afthree.as.arizona.edu (Thomas J. Trebisky) writes:
>> >Another twist - what about a port of 4.3BSD to the Unix PC (note: I don't
>> >want to enter into a potential firestorm of System V versus BSD debate here.)
>> >I have been taking a hard look at porting 4.3BSD to the CT miniframe for
>> >some time now (and was thinking of pressing my newly acquired unix-PC into
>> >service on this project as development systems).
>> 
>> "We're also thinking about putting in BSD stuff"
>> 
>> Just for fun, is anyone here friendly enough with CSRG to ask them how
>> long it took them to port 4.3BSD (old VAX version) to support the
>> newer Tahoe processors?  Make sure to find out how many man-hours it
>> took.  And ask if they had any problems with finding out about
>> bizarre hardware timings.  And if the Tahoe people were friendly and
>> helpful about their product.
>> -- 
>> Jeffrey L. Bromberger
>> jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu			jeffrey@ccnysci.BITNET
>> 	Anywhere!{cmcl2,philabs,phri}!ccnysci!jeffrey
>
>If anybody is still dreaming these dreams,
>there is a BSD version running on SMALL machines
>current call-numbers 2.10 or 2.11.
>We used to have this running on PDP11's
>where I used to work.   I'd start any BSD port
>using this as a base.
>
>I agree with Jeffrey, most of these ideas sound too big
>for the number of man-hours we could devote to them.
>
>And if I were planning this kind of effort, I'd want
>to be doing it for an upward-compatable platform.
>The unix-pc IS, in a way, but . . . .
>
>Still, we DID get MGR.
>                               Kris A. Kugel
>                             ( 908 ) 842-2707
>                      uunet!tsdiag.ccur.com!hico2!kak
>                        {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak
>                      internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com

My $.02:

I realize that I may be a MAJOR heretic in the UNIX world, but I really
don't regard BSD as the Holy Grail of UNIX-dom.  I'd MUCH rather keep a
small, fast kernel ( the SYS-V approach ) rather than the giant kernel
of the BSD systems.  Given the 4MB address space of the 3B1 (et. al.) it
makes much more sense to adhere to the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, S...)

What I WOULD like to see from this effort are:

    * bug fixes
    * SCSI support, especially for SCSI hard disks and file systems
    * better disk management (fragmentation control)
    * improved serial I/O

This may not be very ambitious, but it would be of much greater
immediate use.


As for MGR:

I will probably install MGR (using the software vidpal) in the next week
or so.  Still: where are any applications for MGR??  Yes, there is a
ported TeX previewer, but beyond that ???

We need at least a port of [x]fig, plus other USEFUL tools, else it's
just a pretty demo of what could be/have been.
-- 
Bill Meahan (WA8TZG)             |   Programming is simple:
wwm@wa8tzg.mi.org  OR            |
uunet!mailrus!sharkey!wa8tzg!wwm |   All you have to do is put the right
"Home for Cybernetic Orphans"    |   numbers in the right memory locations!