Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eneevax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi
From: ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: unix on the 520st (why there is none)
Message-ID: <462@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Dec-85 16:32:32 EST
Article-I.D.: eneevax.462
Posted: Sun Dec 22 16:32:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 01:21:14 EST
References: <912@mcvax.UUCP> <235@unirot.UUCP> <159@imagen.UUCP>
Reply-To: ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, EE Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 21

In article <159@imagen.UUCP> turner@imagen.UUCP (D'arc Angel) writes:
>i wouldn't bet my terminal too quickly, there WILL be a unix
>available from Atari and it will be AT&T V7, but not for the ST. The
>above reasons while not vital are critical enough to make it too
>difficult to do. The Atari port will be for the TFM machine and your
>timeframe is about right, nothing is set in concrete but it will be
>a black box with a 68020 (i hope) or a 32032 in it and it will use
>the ST as an intelligent front end, windowing terminal etc.

WHy would they want to put AT&T V7 on the 32 bit machine. There is no
excuse for anything less than 4.3BSD + a nice window manager considering
the hardware they are putting it on. I personally hope that they will
provide a higher res color bitmap alternative than the ST otherwise
they have no chance to break into the low-cost workstation marketplace.
There are certain minimum levels of functionality that I hope atari is
aware of or they will find themselves in limbo like the amiga, which is
too expensive for a home machine and not good enough for any serious
cad/cam work.
-- 
ARPA:	ravi@eneevax.umd.edu
UUCP:   [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi