Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu (Guy Helmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Amiga version of Minix
Message-ID: <6537@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 89 21:14:18 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 26

In a recent posting, Olaf Seibert writes:
>In article <1877@ast.cs.vu.nl>, ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>> In article <22766@pbhya.PacBell.COM> jwste@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Jerry W
> Steffler) writes:
>> >(irrelevant stuff deleted...)
>>
>> I agree.  When learning to program, porting a multiprogramming operating
>>system to a piece of poorly documented hardware probably shouldn't be project
>> number 1.
>> Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
>
>I wouldn't call the Amiga 'poorly documented hardware'. There is
>something called '(Commodore-Amiga) Hardware Reference Manual',
>published by Addison/Wesley, that contains (almost) all information
>you normally should not want to know. And besides, the Amiga already
>has a proper multitasking operating system.

The documentation you refer to is hardly understandable and mostly unusable,
besides being inconsistent and incomplete.  As for having a proper
multitasking operating system, the Amiga is in desperate need of an
operating system that doesn't just crash every so often for fun.  I
tried to write programs on the Amiga using AmigaDOS, and I quickly
went back to using my stable (but single-tasking) PC-DOS on my 8088
machine.

- Guy Helmer,  South Dakota School of Mines and Technology