Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!unisoft!fnf
From: fnf@unisoft.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari16
Subject: Re: Unix for 520st?  Please let it be!
Message-ID: <69@unisoft.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-May-86 01:47:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: unisoft.69
Posted: Thu May 29 01:47:33 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 31-May-86 05:17:22 EDT
References: <166@sage.cs.reading.Ac.Uk> <278@brueer.brueer.UUCP> <560@pucc.BITNET> <3479@ukma.UUCP> <1101@ellie.UUCP>
Reply-To: fnf@unisoft.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Distribution: net
Organization: UniSoft Systems; Berkeley, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1101@ellie.UUCP> mesches@ellie.UUCP (Scott Mesches) writes:
>
>I origionally bought my 520st cause I was told AT&T was porting UNIX to it. 

Wasn't this discussed to death months ago?  Didn't it turn out that what
actually happened is that AT&T announced they were looking at using the
520 as a *terminal* for a Unix system and the news got rather distorted?

I doubt you will ever see a working, reliable Unix for the *current* offerings
from either Atari or Commodore.  The disadvantages of running Unix as a
general purpose OS without memory protection are just too great. Though of
course an ST running a Unix derived kernel and fully debugged, well-behaved
"canned" applications is certainly doable, the question is, is it worth
it?

===========================================================================
Fred Fish    UniSoft Systems Inc, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,lll-lcc}!unisoft!fnf	(415) 644 1230 		TWX 11 910 366-2145
===========================================================================