Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3687 comp.unix.questions:7917 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16900
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Message-ID: <23591@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 2 Jul 88 20:39:57 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT> <109@dcs.UUCP> <308@marob.MASA.COM> <1383@lznv.ATT.COM> <142@wash08.UUCP> <166@skep2.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.att
Organization: Boston University Distributed Systems Group
Lines: 15

In article <166@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,) writes:
|As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course),
|a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license
|	(just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses),

Minix is indeed a pure implementation.  It is different not only at
the source code level, but quite different at the architecture level.
This is not necessarily good (there are many things that are better
done differently) but it's a nice teaching tool, which is what Andy T.
wrote it for.  I'd rather have used it than XINU, which is interesting
in design and implementation but works on that nasty Digital hardware
:-).

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu