Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!princeton!rocksvax!martyl
From: martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX -- why?
Message-ID: <1025@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Apr-87 16:28:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocksvax.1025
Posted: Thu Apr 30 16:28:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 11:29:16 EDT
References: <2055@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Reply-To: martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner)
Distribution: all
Organization: Xerox: Henrietta, NY
Lines: 39

In article <2055@uwmcsd1.UUCP> cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.UUCP (Christopher N Maag) writes:
>     What is the big deal about MINX?  It seems to me that a product such
>as this one is not real exciting.  There are many "UNIX-like" operating systems
>available that are reasonably priced.  For instance, I use a product called
>PCNX by a company called Wendin.  It retails for $99, and although it doesn't
>include a C compilier (as I gather MINX does), it does have a lot of benefits
>that MINIX doesn't have.  One of these is the ability to run most of the MS-
>DOS software that you may have.  It will run almost all of the "well-behaved"
>programs, such as the compiliers you are already using.  It runs on top of DOS,
>which means that if you have a hard-disk that runs under DOS, it will talk to
>PCNX.  (No more patching the kernal to get your hard-disk to work).  Of course,
>the disadvantage of this is that you don't get quite the same directory
>security that you get with UNIX.  You get the source code to the programs, and
>they also include a decent manual on all of the system services.  The system
>supports three simultaneous users, and ten processes per user.  There are 71
>separate UNIX utilites included as well.  (this is only a small description
>of some of the features available)


I bought both Wendin's PCNX and OS toolbox for use at work.

While I feel it was a worthwhile investment (ye Gads -- about 1.5 mbytes of source code for $200) -- it wasn't useful.

I wasn't able to run anything else I wanted to run under PCNX -- PCNX works well
by itself and with the supplied tools but most of the other stuff I wanted to run made it crash.  I have a PC AT full of boards (ethernet, scsi, CP/M emulator, 
etc.).  It turns out it wasn't useful.

In addition, my understanding of PCNX system services is they are more like VMS than Unix (I gather this second hand, I don't know anything about VMS).  Unix source code will * not * compile easily for PCNX.  PCNX source code for various 
utilities will not easily compile for MSDOS or UNIX.  In light of how easy it isto port a lot of software between MSDOS and UNIX, I'd say PCNX has some fundamental
conceptual flaws.

I also didn't like the layout of the source code -- it seems everthing includes all the system header files whether you need them or not.  

PCNX is a technical product.  Comparing PCNX to Minix, I'd much rather hack Minix than PCNX -- I find the textbook and the source code far more understandable and
aestically pleasing.

marty leisner
xerox corp.
leisner.henr@xerox.com