Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga OS (vs Unix) Liscencing? Message-ID: <1109@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 21:29:26 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.1109 Posted: Mon Feb 10 21:29:26 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:19:36 EST References: <11448@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <142@atux01.UUCP> <357@ccivax.UUCP> <618@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <374@ccivax.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto Lines: 83 Summary: The crux of AmigaDOS criticism In article <374@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >In article <618@amiga.amiga.UUCP> bruceb@amiga.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) writes: >>In article <357@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax writes: (edited) > >About the only variable still in question is portability. Appearently >Commodore-Amiga would like to corner developers into writing source >which is exclusively for their machine. IBM plays that game real >well. Apple seems to be less successful in their MAC line. >DEC doesn't seem to worry so much about that sort of thing, they even >have their own version of UNIX. > >How many people are using a VAX to get this? Is it running UNIX? I'm 'here' via Unix--on a *Perkin-Elmer*! > >Probably the main reason for the 'OS-9 and Unix static' is that neither >Tripos nor Intuition/AmigaDos were familiar to US programmers. Seems >like people get nervous when the same company does both the hardware >and the software. Maybe it's the scars from the mutually exclusive >characteristics of Apple/Atari/Commodore and other 6502 machines and >even the TRS-80 Lines. CP/M and MS/Dos machines, though grossly >inferior, were being considered the "Business Systems", while the >"proprietary boxes", with graphics and even some better software >were being considered "toys". Having been burned three times, I'd like >to know that I can "Hedge my bet's" before I go for double or nothing. > >I could care less about IBM compatibility, what I would like though >is an OS that would let me buy/run/sell the same application software on >the Mac, Amiga, and the ST without having to spring for a three >separate copies. Or at least be able to excange data between the >three without having to physically connect the machines >(modem, comm-lines...). There are situations where each would be >desirable (We already have a Mac, but not much software, Amiga's >are powerful enough to do presentation graphics, and ST's are >cheap and 'good enough for photo-copy stuff') but not if they >continue to 'snub' each other. I'd hate to see the 68000 lose out >to the 80386, but it might if the Mac/Amiga/ST people won't play >ball with each other. Has IBM announced their '386 machine yet? Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. If "Intuition" is only "as good as" OS-9 or anything else, or at best can become an OS of this level, then Commodore (and Atari) have really done a disservice to the 68000 world. The *last* thing we needed was another wheel reinvented. To be excusable, I have to say that TriPOS must be shown to be *better* than OS-9. It clearly isn't. For those who don't know, the 68K world has *many* excellent OS's. The most popular before the Mac were CP/M 68K, OS-9, Uniflex and either P-code or Forth among the smaller systems. In large systems the various permutations of Unix *are* the standard. Out of the above, CP/M 68K is widely bought and rarely used. There's simply no reason to bother with it. There isn't much useful software available and the only thing you can do get around it as best you can. P-code and Forth have their followings, but the same arguments for and against these are know in all the other processor family worlds. I won't repeat them. That leaves OS-9 and Uniflex. Both OS-9 and Uniflex are powerful Unix-like OS's. Both originated in the Motorola world (both on the 6809 to be precise). At this time OS-9 has become essentially a standard for small systems based on 68K's. The idea that *only* one of either the Atari or the Amiga is going to survive is silly. I don't believe it. Both are excellent machines. Why should only 1 survive? In the mean time, you have raised the standard of another non-standard why? Haven't you, Commodore learned your lesson yet? Look at the fiasco of your non-ASCII computers from the Pet through to Plus 4? Look at the problems people had trying to use other peripherals with your IEEE-488 bus, when what they wanted was true ASCII and RS-232C. Haven't you heard their cries when new software for Apple II's or Ataris were introduce? Or were you even listening? There are times and ways to break new ground--to advance the state of the art. To be different just for the sake of being different is childishness. If you must be different just for the sake of being different, then wear your shirts backwards. That much costs no else anything. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880