Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga UNIX
Message-ID: <4135@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 88 00:59:33 GMT
References: <1985@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <4079@cbmvax.UUCP> <6811@cup.portal.com> <4124@cbmvax.UUCP> <2210@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 72

In article <2210@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> 	The shell(s) are part of the system.  There are ways around it, of
>> course that requires mods to the shell.  So what?
>
>The shells(s) are just another application program. If you don't believe me,
>call the AT&T Software Toolchest and inquire about korn shell sources. I do
>NOT want a UNIX that requires me to make extensive mods to ksh to make it
>run.

	We're not talking a professional Unix here.  Commodore has made no
mention of Un*x on a 68000 amiga, has it?  We're just talking how one would
go about porting something like Minix to the amiga.  If you think anything
more is going on here peter, you're sadly mistaken (and no, Commodore is not
porting Minix either.  My comments come from when I was at GE, and was part of
the Amiga-minix mailing list on the internet, before it died.)

>> It's user/application/pd/
>> whatever programs where this matters, since anything that's part of the system
>> can work around the slowness of fork()s that don't exec/exit.
>
>And I don't want the guy doing the port wasting his time on application
>programs when he could be adressing systems problems. Go have a talk to the
>guys on comp.unix.microport about where that can lead. Talk to your local
>Xenix site about shells that forget to keep history.

	Please read the rest of the context - I said that almost NO application
programs require this, and why would someone porting a Un*x bother with porting
every appllication in the world: just document how to do it if you REALLY
need to.  Things will work if you don't bother, just more slowly.

>We're talking a major project to get UNIX running under AmigaDOS anyway. Why
>make things harder by porting to hardware that doesn't like UNIX? Install an
>MMU, for gods sake. Ship UNIX with a daughterboard containing at least a
>68010 and an MMU. AmigaDOS likes the 68010 just fine...

	Why do you think C= is doing Un*x for the C= 68020 board, which
comes with a 68851 MMU?  Note Unix also likes lots of memory, which is why
the board has space for memory as well (max I think is 4 meg on board.)

>> 	Also, most (99%? - don't flame, it's just a guess) of pipe invocations
>> don't involve the shell executing lots of subshells that don't exec.  In fact,
>> I think I've never done so.  So long as only one of the shell subprocesses is
>> actually doing any processing, there's no extra overhead.
>
>Have a look at /usr/bin/cal if you have a SYSV system.

	Sorry, I use a sun.  It's an executable here.  (Sys V seems to do
EVERYTHING in scripts, sheesh - even man and cc are scripts.)

>Now, the following is a straw man... just because something is shipped with
>the system doesn't mean it's done right: if it were, then there wouldn't

>> Like I said VERY few.  How many different shells do you run on your system?
>> 2? 3?
>
>4, actually: sh, csh, ksh, and browse.

	So you're unusual.

>> How many of them are user-written programs (i.e. not obtained with the
>> system)?

>2, ksh and browse.

	So if you port them to this hypothetical system that no one is doing,
read the still-non-existant docs and use them to do it right.  Or live with
whatever shells the hypothetical writer ported for you.

	SHEESH!

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