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