Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!trost From: trost@crl.labs.tek.com (Bill Trost) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: What should GNU run on (or shouldn't....) Message-ID: <4457@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> Date: 8 Aug 89 22:58:52 GMT Sender: ftp@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Lines: 43 Probably the wrong place for this (see the Followup-to), but hey, follow the bouncing thread.... (Wizards know about kill files anyhow, right?) I've seen lots of postings recently about GNU OS hardware and the like, and it seems there's a certain amount of misunderstanding and lack of information on the topic, so I'll upgrade it to my level of misunderstanding and lack of information. One individual suggests that 386 systems would provide an advantage because you could run Mess-DOS under Unix to gain access to "a huge and important software base." Somehow, I doubt that the _Free_ Software Foundation has any interest in supporting the use of software made by software hoarders like Microsoft and Lotus on its operating system. The foundation has the goal of creating a huge and important _free_ software base, and would like to encourage others to do the same. (I keep mumbling things to myself about writing GNUcalc, but....) And, support for the 386 is readily available in most GNU tools *now*. The 386 is now being used in real computers (like the Sequent Symmetry), and certainly cannot be ignored. Someone even bravely ventured to suggest that the Mac be used as a base for GNU. FSF is boycotting Apple and encourages you to do likewise. Their boycott centers around Apple's lawsuit against HP and Microsoft. I can send you details if you ask, but I *do not* wish to seed another flame war on this topic --- that's what gnu.misc.discuss is for :-). And, I could go on about Vaxes in schools and the like, but I think the most interesting point of this whole thing is that the front runner for the GNU OS, Mach, a message-passing kernel written at CMU, already runs on Suns and Vaxes and Sequents and Multimaxes and...well, lots of things, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to port. My guess is that the AT port could be done in, at worst, 4 months by people familiar with the hardware. Or maybe it's already been done -- venture into comp.os.mach for details on the OS. Bill Trost, Computer Research Labs, Tektronix trost@crl.labs.tek.com / tektronix!crl.labs!trost (trost@reed.bitnet, but probably tektronix!reed!trost)