Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!vdsvax!barnett From: barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga: Which replacment OS?/UN*X ?? Message-ID: <1765@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jun-87 07:24:28 EDT Article-I.D.: vdsvax.1765 Posted: Thu Jun 11 07:24:28 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 10:08:16 EDT References: <600@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1705@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> <1576@stb.UUCP> Reply-To: barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 71 In article <1576@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >In article <1705@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@ge-crd.arpa (Bruce G Barnett) writes: >>I mean, I don't want to upgrade the chassis and motherboard every >>other year. I want to buy a machine that is useful as is, then add >>memory and disks in the years to come, when they drop in price. >>I can only afford a major purchase in computing power ONCE. > > Then when will you add CPU boards? 68030's will be expen$ive. Maybe not in 5 years >> The CPU motherboard can support 128MBytes (with the right chips). > Huh? 4Mbit chips? (still need 256 of them) No 16M chips - talk about long range planning. :-) > >> The system can support Parallel Processors, with any CPU >> becomming the master. So I can add a 68030 (or whatever) >> board, and use the original CPU board as an I/O handler. >> Or vice versa. > > I may be wrong, but isn't that how the CSA 020 board works? I may be wrong, but I don't understand how the csa 020 board can have 32 bit wide data access to the backplane. I would eventually like the ability to have a 32 bit wide backplane machine with 32-bit DMA etc. >Un$x is an absolute PAIN to use floppies with. No argument. >The file system is not safe. In particular, writes to the disk are buffered >for an arbitrarily long time. Partially an implementation problem. The Berkeley file system is very nice. Files in the same directory are keep on the same cylider group for faster access. Also the BSD kernal has atomic mkdir and rename, which helps to eliminate corrupted disks. Also the superblock is duplicated in a spiral across the disk cylinders, so a head crash will only wipe out a portion of the disk, making the rest recoverable. [deleted comments about advanages of AmigaDOS vs. unix] > >In general, one big complaint I have with un*x is its design philosophy. Its >job is to regulate several competing, hostile programs, limiting each >individual process, and double checking everything they want to do. > >I can do with less hand holding. I program in C :-) I see nothing wrong with having a wonderful operating system for home hacking. I want to have FUN with my home computer too. But if I want to justify the purchase of a computer, I need a machine that can be used to develop commercial applications. Perhaps porting AmigaDOS <-> Un*X is easy. I don't know. I am not talking porting C, but porting code based on library and kernal features, networking, graphics, X-windows, NeWS, etc. I cannot afford to buy a high-tech `toy'. (I have no interest in developing video applications). Just call me over-cautious. >: Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael -- Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.ARPA) (barnett@steinmetz.UUCP) -- "The difference between a Buddha and an ordinary man is that one knows the difference and the other does not."