Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6666 comp.sys.misc:1824 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!postman+uid0 From: dpm@cs.cmu.edu (David Maynard) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.misc Subject: Re: The NeXT machine has been announced! (was long) Message-ID: Date: 16 Oct 88 20:47:42 GMT References: <360@elan.UUCP> <2070@cloud9.UUCP> <6483@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, <530@sactoh0.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 43 In-Reply-To: <530@sactoh0.UUCP> > I keep hearing that MACH is *derived* from UNIX -- and, in one > previous > message, that the new release of the OS will be free from > AT&T licensing. > This, to me, raises the obvious question: is MACH > a *complete* UNIX clone? > Does it include basically *all* the utility > programs that come pretty much > standard with AT&T/BSD UNIX? > Just > how (a) buggy and (b) compatible can we > expect it to be? There > are LOTS of UNIX clones already out there (e.g., > Coherent, Idris, > Minix) but there are significant reasons why most of us > prefer the > real thing. (Disclaimer: I just use Mach, I don't work on it. If you want Mach information then you should contact lynn@spice.cmu.edu or look at the published papers. There was a recent bibliography posting in comp.os.research.) First of all, Mach IS UNIX just as much as 4.3BSD is. Sure, there is a completely (for the most part) new kernel under the system call layer, but that only matters to people that want to use the new features like IPC and multi-threading. Sun re-wrote a large percentage of the kernel for SunOS 4.0 and peole don't question whether SunOS is still "UNIX." As far as compatibility is concerned, you can run your 4.3 VAX binaries on a Mach VAX without modification. In fact, I run a lot of Mach Sun binaries on my SunOS Sun (those that don't use the new features). I also consider the Mach systems I use to be just as stable as the non-Mach UNIX systems. Mach has been receiving a lot recent attention, but it has actually been in widespread use here for a long time. Speaking completely on rumor....reports of a public domain version of Mach are highly exaggerated. One of the biggest complaints that I have heard is over the large number of licenses that you need to get it. Except for local modifications, CMU basically uses the 4.3 utility set. If you want a PD UNIX then you had better start supporting GNU since they are the only ones I know who are really pursuing it. I certainly don't want to spend my time writing a PD version of "ed." The GNU people are interested in using the Mach kernel in their effort, but that doesn't mean that CMU will be releasing a PD Mach. --- David P. Maynard (dpm@cs.cmu.edu) Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 --- Any opinions expressed are mine only. I haven't asked the ECE department or CMU what they think. ---