Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Implementing a multitasking OS on top of UNIX
Message-ID: <19260@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 10 May 91 17:58:11 GMT
References: <1991May9.015124.20638@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cat Emporium and BBQ Grill
Lines: 33
X-Clever-Slogan: Help Prevent Robbery.  Tax the IRS.

In article <1991May9.015124.20638@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> craig@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Craig Robinson) writes:
>For my operating systems class we are required to do the following project:
>
>"Groups of three students will design and develop a priority based
>multitasking kernel that provides for process control, process
>synchronization, and process communication.  The kernel will be developed in
>the C programming language and will run on top of the UNIX OS."
>
>This is the exact project specification as stated in our syllabus.  No
>more, no less is required.

You are taking an overly detailed view of the problem.  You have
exactly three things to do - design and implement some scam for
simulating processes and controlling them, design and implement
some scam for having those simulated processes talk to each other,
and finally, design and implement some scam for having these
simulated processes talk to each other.

I'm torn between saying your should be flunked for asking the
net, which I think is cheating, or given an A for asking the
net, which is what real people do when stumped ...

>Any other tips anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated, we only have
>about 3 more weeks until the due date, and we are all very confused about
>exactly how we are going to do this.

This project should be doable in one day of work by you and
your team mates.  Think =very= simple.
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."