Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!aie.nl!kim
From: k...@aie.nl (Kim Schrijvers)
Subject: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.155542.27586@aie.nl>
Organization: AI Engineering BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:55:42 GMT
Lines: 13
Hello,
Can anyone tell me the pro and contras of the following operating systems, I
would also like to know wether they support TCP/IP and C++, and wether they
run on an IBM/XT or not. I looked for a FAQ, but couldn't find one.
Coherent
Xenix
Minix
Lunix
Kim Schrijvers Internet: k...@aie.nl
Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!
vincent1.iastate.edu!michaelv
From: micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Message-ID: <michaelv.711923616@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:33:36 GMT
References: <1992Jul22.155542.27586@aie.nl> <Brtsqr.Bq8@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 28
In <Brtsqr....@well.sf.ca.us> com...@csanta.attmail.com (Greg Comeau) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.155542.27...@aie.nl> k...@aie.nl (Kim Schrijvers) writes:
>>Can anyone tell me the pro and contras of the following operating systems, I
>>would also like to know wether they support TCP/IP and C++, and wether they
>>run on an IBM/XT or not. I looked for a FAQ, but couldn't find one.
>>Coherent
>>Xenix
>>Minix
>>Lunix
>Comeau C++ 2.1 works on XENIX 386. Comeau C++ 3.0 With Templates is on
>a plethora o machines and operating systems and it will be available for the
>just about to be released Coherent 386 4.0 on the same day that it ships.
>Both Minix and Linux are on our "to do" list.
As someone said, don't forget 386BSD.
P.S. You canNOT run _any_ real multiprocessing operating system on an
XT. It can't even be done well on a 286 (witness DesqView and Coherent
3.X). You need at least a 386sx if you want to do unix in any
reasonable fashion.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon "Ignorance is bliss..."
micha...@iastate.edu -- Computer Engineering, Iowa State University
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!maccs!mcshub!csx.cciw.ca!hcp
From: h...@csx.cciw.ca (H.C. Pulley)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Organization: Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:12:55 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca>
References: <1992Jul22.155542.27586@aie.nl> <Brtsqr.Bq8@well.sf.ca.us>
<michaelv.711923616@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Lines: 33
In article <michaelv.711923...@vincent1.iastate.edu> micha...@iastate.edu
(Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>As someone said, don't forget 386BSD.
>
>P.S. You canNOT run _any_ real multiprocessing operating system on an
>XT. It can't even be done well on a 286 (witness DesqView and Coherent
>3.X). You need at least a 386sx if you want to do unix in any
>reasonable fashion.
Just where do you get off saying this???
If you mean multi-processing as in multiple processors, then no current PC
unix-like OS will do it.
AND IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT MY 12-MHZ 286 IS NOT MULTITASKING AT THIS
VERY MOMENT THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER THING COMING!
COHERENT 3.2.1 RUNS MULTIPLE TASKS AND MULTIPLE USERS VERY WELL! JUST WHAT
WERE YOU SMOKING WHEN YOU WROTE THE ABOVE MESSAGE (and where can I get some
for myself ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ?
The day when 386BSD is stable enough to run for a few hours, I might (and I
mean might) take a look at it. I like my tech. support and manuals, thank
you very much!
[and yes, this IS A FLAME!]
Harry
--
h...@csx.cciw.ca | This message | It takes all kinds,
hc...@grumpy.cis.uoguelph.ca | released to the | and to each his own.
-----------------------------------| PUBLIC DOMAIN. | This thought in mind,
Stay away from the DOS side Luke! | | I walk alone.
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!
help.cc.iastate.edu!michaelv
From: micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Message-ID: <michaelv.711988050@help.cc.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <1992Jul22.155542.27586@aie.nl> <Brtsqr.Bq8@well.sf.ca.us>
<michaelv.711923616@vincent1.iastate.edu> <1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:27:30 GMT
Lines: 63
In <1992Jul24.001255.13...@csx.cciw.ca> h...@csx.cciw.ca (H.C. Pulley) writes:
>In article <michaelv.711923...@vincent1.iastate.edu> micha...@iastate.edu
(Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>>As someone said, don't forget 386BSD.
>>
>>P.S. You canNOT run _any_ real multiprocessing operating system on an
>>XT. It can't even be done well on a 286 (witness DesqView and Coherent
>>3.X). You need at least a 386sx if you want to do unix in any
>>reasonable fashion.
>Just where do you get off saying this???
>If you mean multi-processing as in multiple processors, then no current PC
>unix-like OS will do it.
Yes, I did mean multi-tasking, as in multiple processES, and not
multi-processing, as in multiple processORS. It was purely a typo, and
I saw it only after the post was made. I didn't want to post another
article just to correct it, but I just knew someone would jump on it
right away ;-)
>AND IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT MY 12-MHZ 286 IS NOT MULTITASKING AT THIS
>VERY MOMENT THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER THING COMING!
>COHERENT 3.2.1 RUNS MULTIPLE TASKS AND MULTIPLE USERS VERY WELL! JUST WHAT
>WERE YOU SMOKING WHEN YOU WROTE THE ABOVE MESSAGE (and where can I get some
>for myself ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ?
I stand by my statement. You can't do it on an XT. And, you can't do
it well on a 286. Two important things that are missing: large address
model and true virtual memory. This is why you'll never see a
full-featured unix on a 286, and why the top of the line for the 286
will be crippled OS's like Coherent 3.2.1 (which does a great job with
what it has to work with) and SCO Xenix 286. Heck, you can't even use
all the features of MS-Windoze on a 286, and OS/2 doesn't even bother
trying with version 2.0. Because they can't do the things they want to
do without a) flat memory addressing and b) true virtual memory.
Like I said, Coherent 3.2.1 and Desqview do a find job with what they
have to work with. But it will never go much farther than that.
>The day when 386BSD is stable enough to run for a few hours, I might (and I
>mean might) take a look at it. I like my tech. support and manuals, thank
>you very much!
All the people who blast 386BSD seem to fail to recognize that until
last week, it was an _alpha_ product--not even beta. I found it quite
stable (and managed to keep it up for days at a time) even in version
0.0. Version 0.1 is out now, though, and is truly impressive. It's
very stable, and amazing in its completeness. I hate to advertise
another "company's product" on someone else's newsgroup, but 386BSD is
outstanding for a free unix, and would even be worth the price of
Coherent, IMHO.
>[and yes, this IS A FLAME!]
Already had the asbestos undies on. :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon "Ignorance is bliss..."
micha...@iastate.edu -- Computer Engineering, Iowa State University
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ajk.tele.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!nntp.hut.fi!
Petri.Virkkula
From: Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi (Petri Virkkula)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
In-Reply-To: michaelv@iastate.edu's message of Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:27:30 GMT
Message-ID: <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231025@vipunen.hut.fi>
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vipunen.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <1992Jul22.155542.27586@aie.nl> <Brtsqr.Bq8@well.sf.ca.us>
<michaelv.711923616@vincent1.iastate.edu>
<1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca>
<michaelv.711988050@help.cc.iastate.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:10:25
Lines: 31
On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:27:30 GMT, micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) said:
Michael> I stand by my statement. You can't do it on an XT. And, you can't do
Michael> it well on a 286. Two important things that are missing: large address
Michael> model and true virtual memory. This is why you'll never see a
Michael> full-featured unix on a 286, and why the top of the line for the 286
Michael> will be crippled OS's like Coherent 3.2.1 (which does a great job with
Michael> what it has to work with) and SCO Xenix 286. Heck, you can't even use
Michael> all the features of MS-Windoze on a 286, and OS/2 doesn't even bother
Michael> trying with version 2.0. Because they can't do the things they want to
Michael> do without a) flat memory addressing and b) true virtual memory.
But 286 has flat addressing and possibility for virtual memory
in protected mode. However none of operating systems that I
have used doesn't just take advantage of all 286's features.
Petri
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri Virkkula | email : Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi
J{mer{ntaival 11 H 168 | pvirk...@niksula.cs.hut.fi
02150 Espoo | pvirk...@nic.funet.fi
FINLAND | Phone : +358 0 455 1277
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!mtu.edu!kwfriber
From: kwfri...@mtu.edu (Kenberg Frieth)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Message-ID: <1992Jul28.154817.5839@mtu.edu>
Organization: Michigan Technological University
References: <1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca> <michaelv.711988050@help.cc.iastate.edu>
<PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231025@vipunen.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:48:17 GMT
Lines: 26
In article <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231...@vipunen.hut.fi> Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi
(Petri Virkkula) writes:
>On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:27:30 GMT, micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) said:
>
>
>Michael> I stand by my statement. You can't do it on an XT. And, you can't do
>Michael> it well on a 286. Two important things that are missing: large address
>Michael> model and true virtual memory. This is why you'll never see a
>Michael> full-featured unix on a 286, and why the top of the line for the 286
>Michael> will be crippled OS's like Coherent 3.2.1 (which does a great job with
>Michael> what it has to work with) and SCO Xenix 286. Heck, you can't even use
>Michael> all the features of MS-Windoze on a 286, and OS/2 doesn't even bother
>Michael> trying with version 2.0. Because they can't do the things they want to
>Michael> do without a) flat memory addressing and b) true virtual memory.
>
> But 286 has flat addressing and possibility for virtual memory
> in protected mode. However none of operating systems that I
> have used doesn't just take advantage of all 286's features.
>
> Petri
The 286 has does not have flat addressing. It is still segmented. Also,
it does not support virtual memory directly (although, one could probably
do it in software). The 286 does have some memory protection, and does
have protection levels for some instructions.
Ken Friberg
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!funic!nntp.hut.fi!nntp.hut.fi!Petri.Virkkula
From: Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi (Petri Virkkula)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
In-Reply-To: kwfriber@mtu.edu's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:48:17 GMT
Message-ID: <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul29191611@vipunen.hut.fi>
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vipunen.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca> <michaelv.711988050@help.cc.iastate.edu>
<PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231025@vipunen.hut.fi>
<1992Jul28.154817.5839@mtu.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:16:11
Lines: 25
On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:48:17 GMT, kwfri...@mtu.edu (Kenberg Frieth) said:
Ken> In article <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231...@vipunen.hut.fi> Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi
(Petri Virkkula) writes:
Ken> The 286 has does not have flat addressing. It is still segmented. Also,
Ken> it does not support virtual memory directly (although, one could probably
Ken> do it in software). The 286 does have some memory protection, and does
Ken> have protection levels for some instructions.
Ken> Ken Friberg
Haven't I understood something correctly? Isn't it possible to
swap segments to disk using Valid and Accessed flags in
segment descriptors?
Petri
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri Virkkula | email : Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi
J{mer{ntaival 11 H 168 | pvirk...@niksula.cs.hut.fi
02150 Espoo | pvirk...@nic.funet.fi
FINLAND | Phone : +358 0 455 1277
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Message-ID: <1992Jul29.172406.29587@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:24:06 GMT
References: <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul27231025@vipunen.hut.fi> <1992Jul28.154817.5839@mtu.edu>
<PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul29191611@vipunen.hut.fi>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 40
In article <PETRI.VIRKKULA.92Jul29191...@vipunen.hut.fi> Petri.Virkk...@hut.fi
(Petri Virkkula) writes:
>
> Haven't I understood something correctly? Isn't it possible to
> swap segments to disk using Valid and Accessed flags in
> segment descriptors?
Yes, it's certainly possible, but it's also almost never worth the
bother: it's slow, hard to program, and writing a C-compiler (and
probably any other language) to understand several segments while still
being efficient is pretty hard. And having just one code-segment and
one data (and stack) segment is simply not enough for a lot of
interesting applications.
Having several different code/date-segments doesn't lend itself very
well to high-level languages (it doesn't even work too well in assembly,
but there the programmer often knows what he/she is doing). Thus
coherent 3.2 and minix don't even try: they keep to one segment, and
limit all data to 64kB. You can do a lot in 64kB, but I'd rather miss
the experience.
OS/2 1.x tried to implement a "real" system on a 286, and while some
people think it worked well, most people (including the OS/2 2.0
designers) seem to agree that the 286 protected mode memory management
is simply not enough for any good real system. Of course, you can still
use them for DOS or some other embedded system (a toaster, washing
machine etc).
That doesn't mean the 386 is perfect: it has got it's own number of
idiocyncracies (especially when used in AT hardware). But at least you
don't have to fight the hardware all the way if you want to do something
bigger on a 386.
Linus
PS. "Being able to" and "suitable for" are totally different things:
you can write a fully multitasking VM system with 32-bit pointers on a
Z80 (for example by writing a 386 (or why not a cray-XMP?) emulator on
it), and all general-purpose processors are theoretically able to solve
the same set of problems. Thus even a lowly 286 can provably do the
same things a 386 does. It's just not worth it in most cases.