Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!jk0
From: jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Bruce Evans' opus
Message-ID: <3151@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 00:52:18 GMT
References: <11989@bcsaic.UUCP>
Sender: jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Lines: 30

From article <11989@bcsaic.UUCP>, by paula@bcsaic.UUCP (Paul Allen):
> We seem to be standing at a crossroads.  We can choose either to
> maintain the IBM version of Minix as a toy operating system, or
> we can evolve it to support current hardware.  The Atari version

	Pardon me this is NOT a flame, but "we" seem to be saying "WE" a
little too often.  I think we should all take a small step back and
realize that Minix is Dr.  Tanenbaums baby - NOT ours.  I realize we've
all been "guinea pigs" with Minix and we all love it, but still - it's
his creation, not ours. 

	What's your vote Dr. Tanenbaum?

> ...  The Atari version
> of Minix was apparently 'real' at the outset, judging by the 
> amount of current Unix software that runs on it.  The IBM version 
> is a toy that supports current software either with great difficulty 
> or not at all.  

	But the Atari ST isn't exactly the ideal hardware either :-).

> 
> I sincerely hope that Dr. Tanenbaum will reconsider his
> decision not to adopt Bruce's version.

	(Me too :-)

--
Jason Coughlin
( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx.BITNET )