Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!rpi.edu!deven From: deven@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Unix V7 functionality under (or along with) AmigaDOS? (*LONG*) Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 89 20:44:10 GMT References: <6157@cbmvax.UUCP> <6185@cbmvax.UUCP> <473@laic.UUCP> <6276@cbmvax.UUCP> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Reply-To: shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven Thomas Corzine) Distribution: comp Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab, Troy NY Lines: 100 In-reply-to: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP's message of 15 Mar 89 03:49:33 GMT In article <6276@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: >In article deven@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) writes: >>AmigaDOS, however, just plain sucks. It's a shame that people get >>such a poor opinion of the Amiga's OS in general when it is only the >>DOS which is so lame. Such is life. AmigaDOS needs to be replaced. >>IMHO. > AmigaDos isn't totally bad. It has some nice paradigms, some >that are much nicer than standard Unixes: easily mountable devices and >handling of removable media, user process filesystems (ala Mach), a >message based filesystem interface (as opposed to a monolithic >kernel), unlimited numbers of open files, some support of file locking >(not totally complete yet - mainly an fs issue). This is true. As I said in another posting, there ARE things worthwhile in AmigaDOS, such as you mention above. The good things in AmigaDOS often don't get enough credit (myself included) but it really would be better to replace AmigaDOS with a FS supporting the good points to AmigaDOS and ditching the rest. (BCPL, most notably.) > It is _currently_ written in BCPL and some asm. This can be >fixed. Some of the interfaces use BPTRs and BSTRs, these can be >mildly annoying but aren't a big problem for most people, since most >developers see only the C-compatible dos.library interface. Shell >writers are the one exception to that, and in 1.4 we hope to make it >easier on them. Sparse documentation on some things didn't help >either, but again it mostly affects shell-writers. Perhaps. Still, getting rid of the BPTRs and BSTRs in the interface would be an improvement, even if they are still in use behind the scenes. > The other major thing involved are the commands in the C >directory. They're not the same as Unix or MsDos, just close enough >that people can get confused sometimes. They were originally low on >functionality in some places, that has been and is being improved >(look at 1.3 for some good examples). Most are still in BCPL, that >will change. If you prefer, there are the arp commands written in >ASM, and using the arp.library. They are smaller, and the arp people >added a number of options. I don't particularly like either option... ARP is very nice, but still caters to the CLI, and more importantly, is designed and written for AmigaDOS V1.2 and so isn't entirely compatible where changes have been made for V1.3, such as the new protection bits, etc. > The 1.3 AmigaShell is an improvement over the CLI. Even Matt >Dillon (of csh fame) seems to really like it, and has switched over to >it from his own shell. No argument here. AmigaShell is a vast improvement over the CLI. It's still not good enough for me. :-) What I mean is that I still want something better, which is why I intend to write it myself. I am currently using AmigaShell also, but I want more. I have use Matt's shell nad variations of it, but I consider it basically a hack. (No offense, Matt...) But it IS vastly better than the CLI also, though still not what I want. But AmigaShell is significantly faster, which is part of why I am using it also. Minor (?) gripe here, though. I wish Matt wouldn't write his code such that it only compiles under Aztec C. *sigh* > Essentially what I'm saying is that it's been "fashionable" to >denigrate AmigaDos, with some justification, but not as much as people >often imply. The justification is much smaller in 1.3, with >AmigaShell, new command options, FFS for faster HD access, etc. The >justification will get much smaller in 1.4. The worst remaining >problem, that of people writing shells, should be dealt with fairly >well (or I'll eat my terminal :-). The justification is smaller indeed, but it will probably remain until the whole damn thing is revamped for (presumably) V2.0... But I certainly have nothing against increased functionality. I just wish it were more cleanly implemented. (and I don't really believe it can be until the BCPL is ditched. debate is clearly possible on this point.) > Lastly, it's easy to say "AmigaDos sucks, we should throw it >away and start over", but in reality that's not a good option. We >would throw away all the work people have done to work under AmigaDos, >all old disks would no longer be useable, old programs wouldn't work, >we'd trade our current annoyances for a brand spanking new set of >_bugs_ and annoyances, and destroy what confidence we have generated >in the Amiga. Plus it would take a MAJOR effort to do that, compared >to fixing what problems exist with it. There is that. One reason why I'm taking the approach I am... If/when I write a file system to go along with the Unix-type functionality link&run-time libraries, it will run concurrently with AmigaDOS and they should be able to get along reasonably well... And later it would be easy enough to move it so the entire thing is standalone, running with or without AmigaDOS equally well... Seems a worthwhile goal to me, and it does NOT sacrifice compatibility with AmigaDOS if you want to have it. What could be better? :-) Deven -- ------- shadow@pawl.rpi.edu ------- Deven Thomas Corzine --------------------- Cogito shadow@acm.rpi.edu 2346 15th Street Pi-Rho America ergo userfxb6@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 (518) 272-5847 sum... In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank what?" ...I think.