From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga 4000/FALCON
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:43:44 GMT
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Aug18.081228.5789@wam.umd.edu> gcasa@wam.umd.edu (Gregory John Casamento) writes:
>This is in resonse to Steve Wootton.  I lost your email address...
>
>Article Begins:  
>
>>Which UNIX?  Linux, which is POSIX-compliant (mostly), runs in 2Mbytes.  
>>Coherent 3 runs in 512K.  V7, well, I'll get to that.
>
>I'm talking about AT&T Unix SYS 5 REV 4.  Not one of these wimpy imitations.
>Coherent???? HA AHAHHAHHAHHA!!  It's just a toy!!  V7 is somewhat old and
>used by people who can't afford the real thing.  Let's get this straight when
>I metion UNIX anywhere in this reply I am referring to the FULL BLOWN SYSTEM,
>not some toy like Coherent.

Mark Williams is currently shipping Coherent 4.0, which is a full 32 bit
UNIX clone that can run binaries from SVR3.2 Intel boxes and from SCO
UNIX boxes.  Binaries compiled under Coherent 4.0 will run on SVR3.2 and
SCO UNIX boxes.  Some of the big names in UNIX development tools have
signed on as third party developers for Coherent 4.0.

Coherent 3.x is a clone of V7 with S3 and SV extensions.
  
>>True.  Just over 20, actually.
>
>Yes, quite alot longer than most OSs in use today.
>
>>Uh, bound to be big?  Multi-user, yes.  But for the longest time, UNIX ran 
>>in 64K of RAM on the DEC pdp8 family.  The pdp8 may have been a "minicomputer" 
>>when it was new, but an 80286 would embarrass it fairly seriously today.
>
>Yes,bound to be large because of all of the services the full UNIX S5R4 system
>provides.  Also, when was the last time you saw someone using a PDP8???  We
>are talking about the present here.  Let's also get THIS straight, since you
>seem to have trouble keeping your head with the present technology and out
>of the realm of toys such as coherent. Whenever I say "mainframe", "mini-  
>computer" or any other computer related term I a NOT referring to something
>like the PDP8,  or anything older.  Let's confine our discussion to the pre-
>sent.
>    
>System 5 combines Xenix, AT&T Unix, BSD, SunOS, and a few other versions of
>Unix together into one system.  This was done to promote compatibility between
>all of these platforms.  If the systems using SYS5 aren't binary compatible,
>then at least they are source compatible, becuase all of the same functions
>are supported on each seperate machine.  That is why I said it would be large
>and would require a fast machine with a big hard-drive to run effectivly.

Much of the BSD stuff in SVR4 is flawed.

The Xenix and SVR3.2 compatibility are there because most of the commercial
packages for UNIX on Intel boxes are written in SCO UNIX/XENIX or SVR3.2.

>>Version 7 UNIX would still run comfortably in 1Mbyte or less.  Remember, 
>>UNIX was based on the "small is beautiful" model.  Just because the current 
>>crop of commercial operating systems are pigs doesn't mean that UNIX started 
>>out that way.
>
>Perhaps version 7 WOULD run comfortably in 1MByte or less.  However, no one
>I know would buy V7.  It is somewhat old and cannot support X11, however that
>is not the only reason.

However, V7 is still in use and there are machines on USENET that are
running it.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy