Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!cae780!leadsv!laic!darin From: darin@laic.UUCP (Darin Johnson) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: The Amiga Port Message-ID: <186@laic.UUCP> Date: 24 Mar 88 22:54:07 GMT References: <1483@louie.udel.EDU> <343@wsccs.UUCP> Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park Lines: 79 Summary: Ahem! I must point out some misconceptions here (seems IBM hackers always have them :-) Disclaimer: I am not putting MINIX down - I would love to see MINIX on my Amiga (mostly so I could have source code, expirement, patch, etc.) In article <343@wsccs.UUCP>, wes@wsccs.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > > Minix has multitasking! > > AmigaDOS has always had multitasking. > > AmigaDOS has always *SORT OF* had multitasking: applications can turn it > off, blowing up other applications that use the multitasking. Way off base here. There is one major operating system that I know of (TOPS??) that is multi-user, but allows a process to turn off context switching. Obviously, this can cause problems if the process doing this is unfriendly and doesn't restore things. By your assumption, this "multi-user" system would be non-multitasking!! A good hacker can probably go in and turn off interrupts (basically turning off multitasking) in UNIX, MINIX, VMS, etc. Does this imply that these machines are not multitasking?? The main difference here between these systems and the Amiga, is that Amiga has a library routine to do this. The ability to turn off multitasking is often necessary (eg: turn off interrupts while deleting a port to be absolutely sure no messages arrive - even if this takes only two instructions, there is the possibility of context-switching messing things up). UNIX device-drivers often need (and use) this capability. The Amiga has always had REAL multitasking - no less so than MINIX. Perhaps your are confused and thinking of a Macintosh switcher hack? > > Minix has pipes! > > AmigaDOS has at least 2-3 public domain versions of a PIPE: > > device. > > A pipe "device"???? Get real! In essence (if not in name) UNIX/MINIX pipes are devices also. Even so, does it make these less of a pipe if they can do everything a MINX pipe can do just as efficiently? > > So basically, it was a dead issue. > > Why is it a dead issue? Because you are not interested? I bet you beleive > your bedroom is the center of the universe, too! (Probably why the universe is so messed up - too many centers :-) > > Of course, it would a great project for someone to do on the Amiga. > > I think so. It is especially appealing to me that it would be pretty easy > to make the Amiga and Atari versions binary (and disk format) compatible. Ugh, this means leaving out machine specific features.. It would have to be machine specific code anyway since device addresses/etc are different. > > Actually, if they could get it to work on the bridge-board (IBM compatable > > add-on) some people could use Minix. > > Why would you want to waste an Amiga as a "terminal" for the IBM version > of Minix? And if the bridge board is truly "IBM compatible", the PC version > of Minix will already run on it. I agree with you here. The bridgeboard should be treated the same as a CPM or C-64 emulator: useful only to run existing software that you already have (or that the boss requires you to use). > Seriously, if you aren't interested in Minix, why are you here telling > everyone why they DON'T want it for the Amiga? Go back to comp.sys.amiga > and 3-line function calls. Why three line? I can get them done in one (except in assembly - there I have to push arguments on the stack or put them in registers. Does MINIX get rid of parameters :-) -- Darin Johnson (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin) (...lll-lcc.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin) All aboard the DOOMED express!