Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!rbt
From: rbt@sftig.UUCP (R.Thomas)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: Welcome!
Message-ID: <575@sftig.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Sep-85 21:20:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftig.575
Posted: Mon Sep  2 21:20:19 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 04:36:07 EDT
References: <511@petrus.UUCP> <974@druxo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:26 net.micro.cbm:1679


> anybody besides me interested in getting OS9/68K running on the Amiga?
> Somebody's bound to have thought of it by now.
> 
> Doug Hall

Actually, I'm surprised that the same thought didn't occur to the
developers of either (both) of the amiga or the 520ST.  It would seem that
OS9/68K would be an ideal substrate for the 'visual/mac-type' user
interface that they provide.  Does anybody know why they decided to "go
their own way" and develop custom OS's for their machines.  Are the OS9
developers so unreasonable about relicensing that this was impossible?
Or is there something about OS9 that makes this less sensible than I think
it is?

Rick Thomas
ihnp4!attunix!rbt