Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!mirror!frog!wang7!ejohanss
From: ejohanss@wang7.UUCP (ejohanss)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: A proposal--TOS Replacement Project
Summary: net novice mistake #152
Message-ID: <2580@wang7.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 88 19:14:00 GMT
References: <700@sdcc15.ucsd.edu> <2545@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <11288@cup.portal.com> <2579@wang7.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Lowell, MA, USA
Lines: 26

In article <2579@wang7.UUCP>, ejohanss@wang7.UUCP (ejohanss) writes:
> 
> it seems to me that we may have the basis for stos already.  it is called
> st-minix.  stminix is a supported product, and the source is available. 
> all it needs is a couple of device drivers (windowing system and rs-232) 
> and a gem compatability library for running tos programs.
> 
> --- eric johansson

hmmm, i seam to have comitted novice mistake #152, not reading all your news
before replying.

Having read the arguments against using st-minix as the basis for Stos, I find
that st-minix is the best possible start we can have.  The prentis-hall license
issue can be gotten around in a few creative ways.  for example: P-H could 
permit limited distribution of binary images of stos perhaps on a shareware 
basis.  If Stminix was romable, P-H could sell or license the roms.  As a 
measure of last resort, we could distribute just the diffs that turn st minix
into a tos compatable os
my point is that there is no technical reason why we should not use st minix.
there are some legal and license stumbling blocks but it is easier to get around
them than writing a new os and file system. (not as much fun, but definitly
easier :)

--- eric johansson     ...ima!wang7!ejohanss
508-967-6027