Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bnl44.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm From: jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Info on OS9 Operating System Message-ID: <1007@bnl44.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 06:44:05 EDT Article-I.D.: bnl44.1007 Posted: Wed Sep 25 06:44:05 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 07:30:21 EDT References: <347@wlbr.UUCP> <2193@ukma.UUCP> Lines: 23 Xref: linus net.micro.amiga:4077 net.micro.6809:480 net.micro.68k:1081 >OS9 has a real problem, and it's not in the software, but with the management. >Microware will not release source code to OS9, not even to developers! I find >this apalling, and it is probably one of the main reasons that OS9 is not more >popular than it is. They have really stuck it to themselves there, because >AT&T is starting to push SysV for the 68000, for which you can get source code. According to the licensing information I got from MicroWare about 6 months ago, full source code is provided to OEMs who purchase a high volume distribution license. You must also realize that OS9 source code isn't as necessary as Unix source code. It is possible to bring up OS9 on a totally new system without sources. It is also possible to extend the kernel without source code (i.e. you should be able to do NFS for OS9 without kernal sources). This is not to say that sources aren't a good thing to have (I would sure want them), but that they aren't as essential for OS9 as they are for Unix. But they are available, so this whole discussion is moot. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm jpm@BNL44.ARPA "MS-DOS is a communist plot"