Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!motcsd!udc!radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com!dfields
From: dfields@radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Fields)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: Shrink-wrap UNIX for 88open architecture.
Keywords: Fully Open Systems; MIPS ACE
Message-ID: <2540@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 03:49:04 GMT
References: <12@metran.UUCP> <4155@risky.Convergent.COM>
Sender: netnews@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Lines: 36

In article <4155@risky.Convergent.COM>, scottl@convergent.com (Scott
Lurndal) writes:
|>In article <12@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
|>
|>|> Does the 88open standard allow for a company to develop a port of
|>|> UNIX to a generic 88k system?  In other words, is it possible for
|>|> there to be a shrink-wrap UNIX port that will run on *all* 88open
|>|> compliant machines?
|>
|>No.  The standards developed by 88open are software standards.  They
|>define a software environment that must be presented by a conforming
|>hardware platform.  
|>
|>For a shrink-wrap unix to be feasible, the hardware would also need
|>to be specified (i.e. how to address the various timers/clocks/
|>peripheral devices &c).  This would be too restrictive for any
|>hardware vendor to contemplate.

In it's pure form I agree.  However, I think that it would be
well within the relm of possibility to issolate the machine
dependent parts of the kernel in to a well defined module
which would then be vendor specific.

Obviously this wouldn't satisfy every vendor but even a good
issolation of platform and architecture [read chip family] dependent
code at the source level would be very benificial.  Given that
machine dependent code in the Sys V reference ports aren't even
ifdef'd for byte ordering in many cases I won't predict the amount
of work... :-(

The micro-kernel approach that some vendors are taking has the possibilty
of allowing the servers, which contain the bulk of the "Unix TM" code,
to be shrink-wrapped.  It would probably be easier because of the clean
interfaces required to partition the servers.
               
Dave Fields // Motorola Computer Group // dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com