Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!mmdf From: Tyler Sarna Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Amiga MINIX, III Message-ID: <55359@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 3 Jun 91 19:11:33 GMT Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu Lines: 104 1013734%HYDRA.MATHS.UNSW.OZ.AU@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > > What is the use of 5 people having a PRIVATE version of MINIX for the Amiga and > PH selling a version which is useless to anyone who could be interested in UNIX. The "Private" version is a beta version. Last time Amiga Minix was released before it was done, and look what happened. They want to make sure that the same doesn't happen this time. If they released a buggy version now, then there would be even more complaints like yours. Haven't you learned anything from the "I want my 2.0" discussions in c.s.a? > As it is, Amiga Minix runs only on games machines (A500's). And the argument I don't consider any Amiga models to be "game machines". Bill Hawes wrote ARexx on a dual-floppy A1000. > of software for brand Y you should only pay half as much (even 2/3 would be > reasonable.) I'll agree that Minix as shipped by P-H is worthless, but at least the upgrade will be free. > The kernel that supported the 680x0 but no hard drives couldn't even identify > the CPU that I was using. When I had my A2620 activated, it was OK, it recog- > nised the 68020 and the 68851. I wasn't too worried about it ignoring the 68881. > But when I used it with my A2630 it was way off, it identified my CPU setup to > be the same as the A2620, even though the A2630 has a 68030 and a 68882. In case you didn't know, Exec <= V34 (1.3) can't tell the difference between an 020 an 030 (or 040). Does this mean that Exec sucks, too? > Now, before you start telling me that the 68030 is same as 68020 with a 68851, > it is most definitely NOT. The 68030 doesn't implement MANY of the 68851 MMU > commands, but it has more levels of protection than the 68851. Which really > doesn't matter anyway because I suspect that MINIX wouldn't use it. The 020 and 030 are close enough for Minix to treat them as the same. The only reason Minix does CPU detection at all is to make sure that it saves/restores a task's state correctly. For that purpose, the difference between the 020 and 030 is unimportant. The new Minix kernel gets it's processor info from Exec when the loader is run. When you upgrade to a new exec (V36 or later, eg 2.x), minix will correctly report on your configuration, but it won't have much if any effect on how minix operates. The difference is only cosmetic. > Now for the hard drive support. The version of kernel that claimed to support > CBM hard drive controlers did not work properly. The problem with it was that > it hated just about anyone with A2500. Users with A2500 have the A2090A hard > drive controler with an XT (ST-506) drive. (Many A2000 users have it as well.) > Now, if you have an XT drive connected, but no SCSI, Amiga Minix would hang > as soon as it was booted. It did find the controller and it did start talking > to it, but when it found no SCSI drive it just threw up all over itself and > then pulled the cord. ie. Did an equivalent of GURU and asked you to reboot > the machine. It's for exactly this reason that the HD version is only a beta version. Sheesh! > Yeah, great. How about mounting one drive for compatibility and the other 3 for > use. You can store up to 1 Meg of data on a disk safelly. Considering the amount of the time that the floppy drive is used on a hard-disk system, especially on a *nix system, compatibility outweighs the ability to store an extra 160-280K of data. It should be possible to implement Amiga-style format with new minor device numbers. As they say, "You've got the sources. Fix it". > Well, I just hope that you are doing some real TESTING and do tell him all > about the silly things that MINIX does when you have differently configured > hardware. Did you ever try, running Minix without any drives connected to the > hard drive controller? With a ST506 only? With ST506 and SCSI, with SCSI only? > How about 1Meg of chip memory? More than 8 Meg of fast RAM? With two hard drive > controllers? etc. Minix now supports the ECS Agnus. Minix should run with more that 8M of fast memory, but some will need to be remapped down under 0x00FFFFFF due to the implementation of MM (a problem common to all Minixen). You've got the beta version, and apparently have problems with it. Have you reported these problems? They can't be expected to test every conceivable configuration. That's the whole idea of a beta test. > Please don't take this personaly, because it isn't aimed at anyone in parti- > cular. I am just frustrated and want to see something done to have this ugly > state of Minix brought up to some reasonable standard. Take it as constructive > criticism. If I was Steven or Raymond, I think I would be offended. I'd hardly consider "it sucks" constructive criticism. They ARE working to get it to a reasonable standard. Give 'em a break! > P.S. - If you need some beta testing done on some of the hardware mentioned > above, get in touch with me, I'll be glad to help, just to see a good I think you've missed the whole point. -- Tyler "Ty" Sarna tsarna@polar.bowdoin.edu "Why would anyone need a computer of their own?" - Ken Olsen