Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!tekcrl!vice!tekfdi!mhorne
From: mhorne@tekfdi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: First Impressions of Minix
Message-ID: <893@tekfdi.TEK.COM>
Date: Sat, 18-Apr-87 18:08:14 EST
Article-I.D.: tekfdi.893
Posted: Sat Apr 18 18:08:14 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 11:49:56 EST
References: <288@grebyn.COM>
Reply-To: mhorne@honda.fdi.tek.com (Mike Horne)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 53
Summary: Erroneous First Impressions

[]

In a previous article, Bob Baumann (bob@grebyn.COM) writes...

>The basic problem is that the thing is too closely tied to the
>hardware.  There's no good reason to bypass the BIOS for everything.

Sorry, Bob, but UNIX (or minix) was never meant to live on top of an
existing operating system.  Have you ever looked at the sources for
Sys V or 4.X?  They are tied very closely to the hardware because they
ARE the operating system for the target system they are on.  Come on, Bob,
the BIOS was meant for MS-DOS and nothing else.

>Due to this low-level implementation, you can't use any of the
>thousands of DOS device drivers (like for my Bernoulli box, my custom
>clock chip, etc).  I'm not impressed by a so-called operating system
>that has to be recompiled to move from my XT to my XT + Bernoulli
>system.

Bob, when you add a new device and/or device driver to an existing UNIX
(or clone thereof) kernal, you have to re-make the kernal.  Usually this
does NOT entail recompiling the whole OS, but rather just compiling the
new driver source and the existing object files for the parts of the OS
that aren't affected by the new driver.  It is a fairly simple process
(re-making the OS, not writing the driver!).  What you want is a good OS
which is as simple minded as MesSDOS but powerful enough to sport things
like multi-tasking, multi-user, mind-reading, etc.  Sorry, Bob, that time
hasn't quite come yet.

>Weigh the plusses against the minuses, and in my opinion it's not
>worth spending any more hours on MINIX.  It's neat as a teaching tool
>(if you take lots of the DOS stuff with a grain of salt), but I've got
>real work to do. I'll stick with DOS.
> 
>  - Bob Baumann
>Robert A. Baumann, CCP, CDP		{decuac, seismo}!grebyn!bob

Translation -- "I want it all, but I am not willing to expend any money/time.
I want to be able to plug it in and it works, regardless of what I want it
to do."

Bob, you are a user.  I don't think you have a feel for what is really
involved in an OS.  You say you have read the book 3 times, but I still
don't think you have learned what is really involved, and what minix was
meant to be.  Hopefully you will be content in your MesSDOS world...

						- MTH
						(My opinions, not Tek's)
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Horne - KA7AXD                  UUCP: tektronix!tekfdi!honda!mhorne
FDI group, Tektronix, Incorporated      ARPA: mhorne@honda.fdi.tek.com
Day: (503) 627-1666                     HAMNET: ka7axd@k7ifg