Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!usc!cs.utexas.edu!gateway
From: COMPR4...@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: unix clones for the pc abound
Date: 6 Aug 1992 11:32:56 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 5
Sender: dae...@cs.utexas.edu
Message-ID: <920806092858.1eac@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
X-Unparseable-Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 9:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Several freely downloadable Unix clones are available for 386 PCs.
These include minix, linux, mach, and 386bsd. Can anyone give a
comparison of these systems?
thanx in advance.
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!
dkuug!daimi!tthorn
From: tth...@daimi.aau.dk (Tommy Thorn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: unix clones for the pc abound
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.174226.20085@daimi.aau.dk>
Date: 10 Aug 92 17:42:26 GMT
References: <920806092858.1eac@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU>
Sender: n...@daimi.aau.dk
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Lines: 83
COMPR4...@UCSVAX.SDSU.EDU writes:
>Several freely downloadable Unix clones are available for 386 PCs.
>These include minix, linux, mach, and 386bsd. Can anyone give a
>comparison of these systems?
>thanx in advance.
*Flame on*
Just how ignorant can people be? Sorry, but I've seen Minix misunderstanding
a zillion times. MINIX IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, FREELY DOWNLOADABLE, DISTRIBUABLE
or whatevery you might call it. It's the property of Prentice Hall Publicing.
(..and is by the way only toy IMHO, cannot run X and never will.)
*Flame off*
Just a short description of the remains:
Linux - a Copylefted *nix clone, written totally from scratch, primarily
by The Great Wizard Linus Torvalds :-), but with massively support
from netters. Linux is moving fast, real fast. So fast that people
is wineing about it several times a day.
Linux has the reputation of being a hacker kernal. While this
might be true, I feel it much overstated, as it's very usable
without hacking kernels. To keep up with the lastest, you might
have to hack, though. Several complete Linux systems (bootable
kernel, root file sys. & programs) are available.
Linux is Posix, and very compatible. My favorite list of what I
like to see/think is missing is: shared memory, networking (tcp/ip),
and Berkeley Fast File System (or something better, like Log
Structured File System). Tcp/ip is in alfatest.
(The following is based on readings, not doings)
MACH - MACH is a portable and advanced message passing based microkernel
being devolped at CMU. Several BigOnes are supporting MACH, including
FSF and OSF (?).
MACH is useless in itself. A free BSD sever was released recently,
but is buggy from what I hear. FSF is working on the ever awaited
Hurd server for MACH. It requires great skill to anything usable
from what's available as of now.
MACH hold great potentionel, and is in a sence more interresting
than Linux or 386bsd (the traditional *nixes).
386bsd - Based on the NET/2 release of 4.3bsd from Berkeley, W. Jolitz & wife,
are striving to make a complete 4.3 *nix, free to everyone. The
effort is documented in a number of articles in Dr. Dobbs. 386bsd
is not moving as fast as Linux, but comes as one compleate release.
386bsd is running, include networking (with hacks).
An interresting point is how these system was built:
- Linux is written from scratch up, based on familar concepts.
- 386bsd topdown, taking a big system and adding code to make it work.
- MACH is (mostly) written from scratch, with many inovative ideas.
MACH is available commercial also. Some very similar to 386bsd, BSD386
is available commercial (very confusing).
For usage now the choise is between 386bsd and Linux. 386bsd's advantage
is it's release structure (you get it all in one package, source and bin.)
Linux advantage is less bagage, optimized for the [34]86, massive support,
fast evolvement, more sexy (Subjective of course :^) shared libs, bla bla..
For now, my money (;^) is on Linux, but I'm watching 386bsd and Hurd closely.
How was the S/N ratio?
--
/Tommy Thorn, another LPF member. Terminate software patents.
Join The League for Programming Freedom, mail lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu.
XT350 '88 - You either make dust, or you eat it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!unislc!erc
From: e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: unix clones for the pc abound
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
References: <1992Aug10.174226.20085@daimi.aau.dk>
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.214854.17763@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 21:48:54 GMT
Lines: 25
tth...@daimi.aau.dk (Tommy Thorn) writes:
: Just how ignorant can people be? Sorry, but I've seen Minix misunderstanding
: a zillion times. MINIX IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, FREELY DOWNLOADABLE, DISTRIBUABLE
: or whatevery you might call it. It's the property of Prentice Hall Publicing.
: (..and is by the way only toy IMHO, cannot run X and never will.)
I see references to minix sprinkled through the kernel, through comp.os.linux,
and through lots of the utilities. Some say that "such-and-such" utility was
ported from minix, or was derived from minix. Here there be dragons...
According to current copyright law in the U.S., a derivation of a copyrighted
program (like the minix kernel, file system, or utilities) made without
permission of the copyright holder is a violation of copyright law. So, either
the linux kernel and utilities need to be 'sanitized', or someone's got to
get assurances from Prentice-Hall that someone won't get sued for what is called
"derivitive copyright infringement".
Be very careful when you say that you've gotten ideas for a kernel hack or
a utility from minix. It might turn around and bite you in the butt. :(
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG e...@apple.com 801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it goes on forever. Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will." -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: unix clones for the pc abound
Date: 11 Aug 92 09:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
In article <1992Aug10.214854.17763@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>
>I see references to minix sprinkled through the kernel, through comp.os.linux,
>and through lots of the utilities. Some say that "such-and-such" utility was
>ported from minix, or was derived from minix. Here there be dragons...
Not really.. but read on.
>According to current copyright law in the U.S., a derivation of a copyrighted
>program (like the minix kernel, file system, or utilities) made without
>permission of the copyright holder is a violation of copyright law. So, either
>the linux kernel and utilities need to be 'sanitized', or someone's got to
>get assurances from Prentice-Hall that someone won't get sued for what is called
>"derivitive copyright infringement".
The minix kernel is well-documented ("OS design and implementation" by
Tanenbaum) and linux hasn't really got too much to do with minix anyway.
Although I have called linux a "minix-clone", it's no longer true in any
way, and never meant linux used very many ideas from minix. It just
looked more like minix-386 than any other OS. Note the past tense: now
even that isn't true (I'd say it's closer to either a "real" sysv or bsd
box than to minix).
There are a few things in the kernel that have been influenced by minix:
the original minix filesystem is the main one. Even that is a total
rewrite (and much better it is, if I may say so :-) and just keeps the
old physical layout on disk. Things like select() and VC's were also
originally influenced by their respective minix-patches (*).
Linus
(*) Note: these aren't even part of minix, but are available as patches
to minix written by others. Even if linux had used their code instead
of just their ideas, P-H has nothing to do with them.