Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga UNIX
Message-ID: <4159@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jun 88 18:10:47 GMT
References: <1985@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <4079@cbmvax.UUCP> <6811@cup.portal.com> <4135@cbmvax.UUCP> <2222@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 36

In article <2222@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <4135@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>> 	We're not talking a professional Unix here.
>
>Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we were...

	Well, then say so.  No one ever did, and the discussion started
about how one would run Unix/implement fork() on a 68000 w/o MMU.

>> Commodore has made no mention of Un*x on a 68000 amiga, has it?
>
>No, but then Commodore is not the only company developing professional
>software for the Amiga.

	It seems the only other company I have heard of that was talking
about doing Un*x for the Amiga (Amnix, I forget the companies name) supposedly
is no longer answering their phone.

>> We're just talking how one would go about porting something like Minix
>> to the amiga.
>
>Why? The Amiga system software is in most areas far superior to Minix.
>The only thing Minix has that I really miss is the ability to easily
>port UNIX code to it. The only feature of UNIX that Minix supports and
>can't be easily emulated on the Amiga is the fork system call. So, if AmUnix
>doesn't support fork, what's the point?

	Why do you think the Amiga-minix mailing list died?  Because it was
a LOT of work (given the state of the minix code), and in many ways minix
was less sophisticated (no queuing of messages, for example).

	fork() was implemented by the ST-Minix people, and apparently it works
pretty well (this is the copy data/stack version, I believe).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup