HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpuente@dit.upm.es (Juan A. de la Puente)
Subject: Adapting Minix 1.2 for a 386
Organization: UUES, Asociacion de Usuarios de UNIX, Spain
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:26:40 GMT

NOTE: I am posting this for a friend. Please reply directly to him
<jvila@aii.upv.es>

=======================================================================
I would like to know if anyone has tried to patch Minix version 1.2
to make it run on a 386 computer.

We do not want to move to the 1.5 version (which is an obvious solution)
because we use Tanenbaum's book (based on earlier versions of Minix)
for lecturing. The problem is that our lab is equipped with 386 computers,
which get crazy with the 1.2 version.

Our interest is to introduce as few changes as possible in Minix 1.2
to make it run on a 386, but keeping it simple and not too different
>from the book stuff.

My first attempt to fix the problem has been to introduce
the floppy and winy drivers from version 1.5 into version 1.2.
The results: floppy keeps waiting forever an interrupt wich never occurs,
while the seventh attempt to program the controller with the proper set
of parameters is taking place.

Any suggestion on an appropiate version of MINIX to our needs or any
hint about how to fix version 1.2 will be highly appreciated.

I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO MINIX NEWS GROUP, SO PLEASE, SEND YOUR REPLIES
TO:

                    jvila@aii.upv.es

=======================================================================
Juan Vila
Universidad Politecnica de Valencia.
=======================================================================
From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Multi-threaded fs for MINIX 1.5.10
Organization: APANA South Australia - State mail hub
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 93 16:58:24 +1030

peace@geiger.rtp.dg.com (John Peace) writes:
> I've been running the MTFS on my Atari Minix 1.5.10 (patchlevel 4) for
> about 6 months now.  It has been stable for the last 5 of those months.
> (I had a couple of nights of fun reconstructing a disk with "fsdb"
> during that first month! :-)  I plan to post my port to the Net shortly
> after the turn of the year.

I await it with baited breath!

  - mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not worry about an infinite            newton@monty.apana.org.au
supply of gibbons..." - Al Dearle                        Mark Newton
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hall@crash.cts.com (Robert R. Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: My upgrade experience
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:14:02 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA


I had no trouble using the 1.5.9 version of tsort to orderlibc.a
The order it produced was almost identical to what AST has in
liborder.  Remember version 1.5.10 was a patch that broke it.

I have not compiled kernel, fs or mm yet as I skipped these for
now and tried a test compulation of the command cal.
It compiled and link with out errors. When I tried to envoke it
under Minix 1.5 it appeard to run and return to sh prompt but
there was no printout, no core dump. (It ignored everything)

Is there a new system call that I haven't gotten to yet in skipping
the kernel?

Robert R. Hall <hall@crash.cts.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: ACK ANSI Compiler
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 00:28:33 GMT

In article <103840@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.163649.17110@udel.edu>, henrik@husc.harvard.edu writes:
>1>Time spent in QA.  
>
>Questions and Answers?  For ACK compilers?  Nearly all support is on
>comp.os.minix!  Nobody pays com readers for support.

Quality Assurance. (ie. testing)

>The true reason for the $200 was recently (perhaps inadvertently) posted by
>ast.  The company distributing the ACK ANSI compiler has a monopoly on it.

fine, if that's the way you want to look at it.

lobby Borland to make a minix compiler.

i'm sure that they might b able to gett one to market for somewhere around
$2,000 a unit.

a monopoly is when a single company controls something exclusively, and
does not allow competition (either through force, or legislation).

ACK is the only compiler maker for minix.  but they do not have exclusive
domain over making compilers for minix.

if they want $200 for their compiler and you think it is too high, don't
buy it.  write your own. use 386 and gcc.


-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From:         NAGI <NAGARAJA%SJSUVM1.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>
Subject:      HELP
Originator: mmdf@louie.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:55:11 GMT

HI,

I AM A NEW MEMBER TO THIS LISTSERVER AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO DOWNLOAD
THE LATEST VERSION OF MINIX. CAN ANY ONE HELP ME ON THIS?
ANY HELP WILL BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED.
THANX
NAGE
-- 
Mail System (MMDF)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Subject: Re: ACK ANSI Compiler
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:56:25 GMT

In article <C0I2CK.75q@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Malte Uhl) writes:
>Ok, we all know the reasons for ACK not being free now. I'd like to raise a
>serious discussion about using gcc only for compiling and developing Minix
>on all of the supported platforms. 

The only platform that I support myself is MINIX for PCs in 16-bit mode.
gcc won't run on that.  Thus I can't use gcc.  Dropping the 16-bit platform
is not in the cards right now.


Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: bad blocks in hd3
From: jhowatt@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu (Jim Howatt)
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:07:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: St. Cloud State Univ., MN

Hello, 

We've installed Minix 1.5.10 on PS/2-60's per the directions in the
manual.  On two, readall found some bad blocks in hd3, and (it appears)
badblocks successfully marked them.  However, when we boot the system
and the ram disk is being loaded from hd3, it spends about 10 minutes
trying to read the blocks that were identified by readall.  After the
ram disk is loaded everything appears to works just fine; we've even
recompiled minix just to make sure we could and created a boot disk.

If the blocks are marked as bad, why does the ram disk loader try to read
them?  Is there a work around to this so we don't have the disk grinding away
for 10 minutes each time we reboot?

Thanks for any advice.

Jim Howatt

+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Dr. James W. Howatt               |  139 Engineering and Computing Center |
| Department of Computer Science    |  St. Cloud State University           |
| jhowatt@eeyore.StCloud.MSUS.edu   |  St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498             |
+-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: cwr@crash.cts.com (Will Rose)
Subject: Re: Version 1.6.24b upgrade problems
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 07 Jan 93 20:29:41 PST

Gerald Heim (heim@peanuts.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
: 
:  - Stay with 1.5.10 since this patching needs too much time even using
:    a 12 MHz-286. (Where are these masochists still using XTs? :->> )

Right here - I bought an XT to a) run Lotus b) run Minix, and Minix
on an XT is an awful lot better than DOS.  It's actually a nice OS
now things like communication programs have fallen into place.  Still
no decent spreadsheet, but 64KB+64KB is too small an address space
anyway, same problem as CP/M.  Furthermore, my XT works, and has done
for four years now.  The new, shiny 50MHz 486 they bought me for work
roaches the DOS filesystem once a day or so, corrupts every file it
edits, and won't accept a tape back-up unit.  This after 3 trips back
to the shop and about a weeks scuffling and cursing by yours truly.
There's a moral to this story...

Will
cwr@crash.cts.com
From: cptnerd@access.digex.com (Captain Nerd)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: ACK ANSI Compiler
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:10:39 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Summary: Price is right.
Keywords: C compiler price comparable

In article <1993Jan05.010851.17372@crash> cwr@crash.cts.com (Will Rose) writes:
>Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) wrote:
>: In article <1i5nm6INN40n@werple.apana.org.au> 
>	hock@werple.apana.org.au (Warwick Hockley) writes:
>: >I think the main point is that most people feel that the 3 compilers should
>: >be unbundled, and the price for each reduced appropriately.
>: 
>:That doesn't work out economically.If we were to remove the Modula and Pascal
>: front ends, the amount of stuff on the distribution disk would only decrease
>: slightly, and the number of disks required wouldn't change at all. The amount
>: of overhead in processing the order wouldn't change, nor would the shipping 
>: cost.  In effect, we threw in the Pascal and Modula front ends for free.
>:
>
>The compiler and libraries take up < 1 360KB disk under 1.3.  You appear
>to be implying that the bulk of the $200 cost is shipping and distribution.
>Looking at the current prices for commercial software, I'm pretty sure that
>one disk can be sold at a profit for a lot less than that.  Alternatively,
>if you are saying that the new C compiler is of itself worth $200, then
>dream on.
>
>Will
>cwr@crash.cts.com


        Speaking as a MacOS developer, US$200 is about right for an ANSI C
compiler.  ThinkC 5.0 is ANSI, comes with source for the associated libraries,
and costs around US$200, depending on whether you go mail-order or not.
I don't think you can get Borland or Microsoft C equivalents for less than
that price, and probably more.  Apple's MPW environment is MUCH more than
that, so I personally have no problem with the price, other than the fact
that I don't currently have US$200 to spare right now! 8^)  Software is
priced based on what people will pay, not how much it costs to create it!
As long as people buy the ACK compilers at the current price, that's what
they'll charge.  I'm sure the folks there did a market analysis of some
kind, and saw what the current compiler providers are charging, and acted
accordingly.  At least ast is making sure you don't >>need<< the new
compiler to do the upgrades!  The only question I have is if the ANSI ACK
compiler will be distributed with Minix 2.0, and if so, how much that will
affect the cost of Minix.  I have MacMinix 1.5.10 patched, and I don't see
myself having time to patch to 2.0, so I'll probably just buy the new version.
Hopefully I'll have enough saved up by then ('94? '95? 8^)

        Cheers,
        Cap.



-- 
      |    Internet: cptnerd@digex.com  70714.105@compuserve.com    |
    "Fear not, gentle programming folk!  It is I, Captain Nerd, Man of 
     Computer Science!  Here to rescue you from the villianous clutches 
     of (shudder) Management!"
From: churchil@athena.cs.uga.edu (Chris Churchill)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: faq request
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:26:16 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

I'd like to know more about minix, but before I asked
a bunch of questions that 99% of the regular comp.os.minex
already knew, I thought I should ask for:

Someone out there in the vastness of the Internet universe
to mail me a faq file, or....

Receive info on how to get that info via an archive or
something.

Thanks

k
-- 
Chris Churchill      		"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"
405 Oglethorpe House                        ---Francis Bacon---
Athens GA 30609                   
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: S90405184@hsepm1.hse.nl
Subject: Re: ACK ANSI Compiler
Originator: mmdf@louie.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:27:42 GMT

Hi,

If you'd *only* use gcc for Minix, what would you do with all those
fine ppl still using '86 and '286? Huh?
Minix still runs on those machines, and I like it.
Why would you want to shut out a lot of ppl? I think there are still a
lot of students using 80[02]86 machines, and they're happy with it,
they can try to write new fs's, mm's and whatever.
Why be egoistic and shut all of those ppl out? They do sometimes
provide good stuff.

Please stop this discussion, I'm about sick of it.
If you want to use only gcc, will you please send me a 386/40 board with
just 1Mb ram? Everything else I can get mysel, but the motherboard is
still too expensive for me.

[flame on]
Puke.
[lame off]

Greets, JEG.
-- 
Mail System (MMDF)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: ACK ANSI Compiler
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:17:39 GMT

In article <C0I2CK.75q@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Malte Uhl) writes:
>
>Ok, we all know the reasons for ACK not being free now. I'd like to raise a
>serious discussion about using gcc only for compiling and developing Minix
>on all of the supported platforms. As Linus Torwalds stated some postings ago,
>$200 for a however-good compiler set is more expensive than a free compiler
>and some memory.

Note that the current compiler does work (as stated by ast several
times), and is also "free" (ie everybody who has minix already has it),
so using it is no problem apart from the warnings it results in.  So for
kernel developement it's probably the best way to go, and it won't even
require any more memory. 

Also, gcc isn't really an option for the 16-bit PC minix versions
anyway, so you can't use it for that.  When I said that there are other
free compilers around, I was just wondering why people got so excited
about the cost of the compiler upgrade when it's not even required, and
most people (68k and 386) can use gcc for most of their compilation. 

>Why do I think so ? gcc runs on a very wide variety of platforms, produces
>reasonably "good" code and implements the (are there more than one ?) ANSI
>standard. Agreed, it is a memory hog, but you'll have a hard time searching
>for a C program that you cannot compile with, say 4 MB RAM. This is what
>an Atari ST is capable of.

Actually with gcc (especially 2.x), it's not hard to find programs that
require more than 4MB to compile - if they contain lots of array
initializers, gcc eats up memory like nothing else.  Someone reported
>20MB memory usage while compiling some bigger X programs under linux,
and things like the flex big-tests easily eat up >10MB.  Most programs
require much less, of course, but even 4MB isn't necessarily enough if
you can't swap.

>A nice (in my opinion) side effect of using gcc would be the removal of
>80[012]86 support and its a fine occasion to make integers 32 bits large
>by default, too.

Somehow I don't think everybody will agree with you :-).  I personally
couldn't care less about 16-bit support, but I doubt ast is really
interested, nor the people who actually use minix on those machines. 

Besides, gcc is also very slow: there was this thread on c.o.l about
kernel compilation speed, and the worst results were in the excess of 10
*hours*.  Of course, that's on a small machine that swaps like mad all
the time, and I personally make my kernel in a matter of minutes (fast
machine, 20MB memory), but it's still a point worth mentioning.

ACK (and bcc and CvW) are probably orders of magnitudes faster during
actual compilation.  Not everybody wants to wait for a kernel compile:
my solution to this is to buy a faster machine, but that's not always an
option. 

		Linus
From: nemossan@uitec.ac.jp (Sakurao NEMOTO)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: The "string" library in the 1.6.24b (lib/string/*.s)
Keywords: 1.6.24b, lib/string/*.s
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:08:18 GMT
Organization: Univ. Industrial Tech., Sagamihara, JAPAN

The followings are the report from k.h@mix on 1.6.24b, originaly
written in English.

------
	The libc.A made by the "lib/Makefile.ansi" in 1.6.24b causes
some problems.

	For example, the "/bin/sh" dies at the meta-character expansion
in some conditions of the protect mode.

	$ echo /usr/src/tools/*
	Memory fault - core dumped


	This is caused by string functions in the "lib/string" directory.
It seems to me that "lib/string/*.s" files are bad.  By re-creating *.s
files from "lib/string/*.x" with

	for i in *.x
	do
		/usr/lib/ncpp -P -Di8088 $i.x >$i.s
	done

we can get correct libc.A.

	Also, by using the "libs.A" from the "UniPress" distribution, we
can get correct result.
------
From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: UUCP Dialers file
Organization: APANA South Australia - State mail hub
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 15:52:40 +1030

root@frmxqnx.hanse.de (Frank Rabe) writes:
> cwr@crash.cts.com (Will Rose) writes:
> : 
> : if he doesn't have space, I'll have to look for somewhere else.  Minix
> : seems mostly FTP now, so I won't be posting it to the net.
> : 
> If nobody posts things anymore there is no choice doing it different.
> I believe there are people joining this group having no direct FTP.

Yes!  I know exactly what you mean, 'cos I'm one of those people.
(at least, I will be in another fortnight when my uni account expires)

Posting sources to the net makes things simple;  it's simple to get 
them in the first place (just hit "s" in your newsreader), and it's
simple for new users to snarf them later on (from Warren Toomey's
archive - Thanks, Warren!).

   - mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not worry about an infinite            newton@monty.apana.org.au
supply of gibbons..." - Al Dearle                        Mark Newton
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: bde@runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans)
Subject: debuger for minix on ibm-pc
Summary: looking for a source code debuger for minix 1.5 on ibm-pc 
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:36:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.012557.2798@csusac.csus.edu> laurent@babbage.csus.edu (Laurent Chavey) writes:
>I am looking for a source code level debuger for minix. I do not know where to
>start looking for it.

There aren't any source level debuggers for standard Minix.  There is an
assembler level debugger `mdb'.  The 68000 version of this is the best
supported.  Minix archives (used to?) have an old 8086-386-68000 version
packaged with my kernel debugger in db.tar.Z.

Source level debuggers require at least line numbers and none of the
available 16-bit compilers produce line numbers.

>If any one knows where I can find one on the internet, or knows of any good
>books or articles on how to write a debugger, I would be please to have the 
>informations passed on.

On a 386 running Minix-386, or on a 68000 with enough memory, you can use
gdb.  I use gdb-3.5.  That version has only 2 or 3 MB of sources.  The
current version is about 4.7 and has well over 10 MB of sources.
-- 
Bruce Evans  (bde@runx.oz.au)
From: klehr@creamer.foo (Thomas J. Klehr)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Mailers
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:07:27 GMT
Reply-To: klehr@bae.bellcore.com (Thomas J. Klehr)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Bell Communications Research

What UUCP-aware mailers exist for PC-Minix (1.5.10), and where can
they be found?

Thanks.

Tom
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Thomas J. Klehr                             Email: klehr@bae.bellcore.com
Bellcore  (RRC 1A-212)                      Phone: (908) 699-7095
444 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: bde@runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans)
Subject: Re: Conversion from DOS to MINIX format
Keywords: C compiler
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 08:25:00 GMT

In article <C0MMBA.9yt@ccu.umanitoba.ca> philz@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca (Haosheng Zhou) writes:
>
>For some reason I would like to re-compile the kermit program. Since 
>the linker with MINIX cannot handle the job due to huge size of the 
>program, I would like to compile the kermit with TURBO C in DOS. Thus I
>need a utility that converts the executable from DOS to MINIX format.

You would also need Minix libraries under DOS.  Get `mcc' from the Minix
archives.  It takes Unix style command line options (mcc -o prog prog.c)
and spawns tcc with the appropriate tcc options.  Minix used to have a
program `dos2out' to convert just the executable.
-- 
Bruce Evans  (bde@runx.oz.au)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Subject: Re: My upgrade experience
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:57:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan09.071402.23890@crash> hall@crash.cts.com (Robert R. Hall) writes:
>Is there a new system call that I haven't gotten to yet in skipping
>the kernel?

The addition of POSIX signals had a major impact on a lot of things, including
the way system calls are actually made.  Before spending a lot of time debugging,
I would suggest that you upgrade entirely to a consistent 1.6.24b.  It is
definitely a possibility that you can't put together part of the old system and
part of the new one.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
From: osymh@giac1.oscs.montana.edu (Michael L. Hitch)
Subject: Re: Amiga version MINIX
Keywords: n
Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman  MT
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:34:39 GMT

In article <9301067094@monty.apana.org.au> newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes:
>cs902125@ariel.yorku.ca (SHUK C YIP) writes:
>> I'm really disappointed by MINIX. (even v1.5)
>> 1. no 020/030/040 supports
>
>68020 and 68030 are supported, by the 1.5.10.1 and 1.5.10.2 patches.
>68040 doesn't work yet, 'cos hardly anyone has one.  Give it time.

   Not quite true - I have a Progressive Peripherals & Software 040
accelerator card in my 2000 and have Amiga Minix running on it.  The loader
program needs a few changes to recognize the 040 and the cache routines
in the kernel need to recognize the 040.

Michael
-- 
Michael L. Hitch			BITNET:    OSYMH@MTSUNIX1.BITNET
Computer Services Consultant		INTERNET:  osymh@msu.oscs.montana.edu
Office of Systems and Computing Services
Montana State University	Bozeman, MT	USA
From: tgcpwd@rw9.urc.tue.nl (Wim van Dorst)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Where is Tin for Minix?
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:46:08 GMT
Reply-To: tgcpwd@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

James Hammett writes:
>Does anyone know where I can find Tin for minix.  It is an NNTP
>thread based newsreader.

Max Blackmer writes:
>I would like to know this too..   just post it here for all to see if you
>have the info..

For starters: There is no Tin for plain Minix, just because Tin is
way too large. When you have one of those Minix'es however that can
accommodate large programmes (Minix-386 or non-Intel Minix) then the
normal straight forward Tin will do, available from the normal Tin 
archives, which I don't happen to remember just now. Drop me a line if
you want those names.

But Lo and Behold: For plain (read small) Minix, there is a Tin-like 
threaded news-reader, named Tass. Actually Tin is a Tass-like newsreader. 
I ported it two years ago to the then actual version of Minix (1.4 or 
starting 1.5). I have been using it for roughly one year on my XT, until 
the time that I got a 386 and switched to Linux and full Tin.

I still retain a copy of Tass for those eager enough to give it a try.
Drop me a line if you want a copy. I sufficient people give word I'll
post it again. OTOH, I guess it's also available from the good ol'
Minix archives as Plains.nodak.edu and Bugs.nocs.mil?

Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim `Blue Baron' van Dorst
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Baron = Wim van Dorst, Voice (+31) 074-443937, (+31) 02152-42319
(-: baron@clifton.hobby.nl  tgcpwd@urc.tue.nl  WvD@Akzo.400net.nl :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix