Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!mykes
From: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga OS
Message-ID: <366@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jan-86 13:45:47 EST
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.366
Posted: Tue Jan 21 13:45:47 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:28:37 EST
References: <11448@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz)
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 64


As someone relatively new to both Unix and AmigaDos, I have found that
the similarities are very strong.  However, at deeper levels, Unix and its
10+ years of maturity is better polished.  However, Unix programs require
MUCH MORE TIME to learn because the source programs have ZERO comments,
and the function names are very short and not very mnemonic.  AmigaDos
has some of the best written documentation I have ever seen, although it
is not always accurate (I expect the documentation will be more accurate
in later versions).

The source code and header files for AmigaDos are excellent, although
verbose.  My opinion is that I would rather read the comments, then strip
them away, then to not have them at all.  The names of all the Amiga
functions are very descriptive of their function.  

I see the Amiga as an attempt to set a new standard in Personal Computers,
not as some compromise between old technology and new.  The hardware is
so unique (no other PC has the same standard features), that the operating
system was required to use all of the features of the hardware (something
that UNIX does not do due to its generality).  

The ROM KERNEL seems to contain the proper components to create excellent
video games and simulations.  The device drivers seem to be a combination
of two designs that not all drivers seem to adhere to.  For example,
I have used CreatePort() to create message ports for serial IO, but not
for the Narrator device.

AmigaDos is a 68K operating system that was written by MetaComco.  It
consists of a library, the CLI, and all the other misc. programs that
run under it.  99% of the criticism seems to revolve around this piece
of code.  However, on a large machine (8MB, Hard Disk), I imagine that
things will be quite tolerable.  However, on a 512K machine, I think we
all feel a need for some elbow room.  Also, the floppies are just too
slow to use with Lattice 'C' in a friendly manner.

I agree that there is a lot to learn from an OS like Unix, but I don't
care if the Amiga software has nothing in common with it.  People keep
saying "I wish it were more like Unix..." or "I wish it were more like
OS-9...", which immediately indicates some amount of bias towards Unix
or OS-9 (to me) and not a constructive point toward the Amiga stuff.  Don't
forget that all the boys at Amiga have Sun Workstations running Unix, and they
write some gorgeous looking 'C' code, and they are not blind to the operating
system that drives the Sun!

My approach to dealing with the inconsistencies of the operating system was
to build an interface to it more to my liking.  I have built a library that
has routines like rs232_open, rs232_getc, scr_open (open window), scr_putc,
etc., which are simpler to call and reduces the number of header files and
initialization code (very lengthy stuff) required from program to program.
This solution also makes my programs a little more portable, since I am
only required to rewrite these routines instead of writing OpenWindow, et al.

I view the Amiga and its software as being immature.  Given a chance, the
machine will be a new standard.  AmigaDos sure beats the heck out of MS-DOS
(as far as programming it goes), and its multi-tasking gives it a unique
look in the PC market.  In a couple of years, the best of Unix will be ported,
and the worst of AmigaDos will be improved and people will rave about it like
they do OS-9 and Unix.

I do not have any direct experience with the Mac or ST, but I don't imagine
that their programatic interfaces are anywhere near as easy to use as the
Amiga's.  I see very little technical information (yet alone programs)
being posted to net.micro.atari, and the Mac has long had a reputation as
being a tough machine to learn.