Port of MINIX to Unix-PC

[Bill Meahan]

In article <1991Mar15.130239.20389 at cbnews.att.com> mvadh at cbnews.att.com (andrew.d.hay) writes:
>In article <1991Mar14.054318.25699 at chance.UUCP> john at chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes:
>"|Is anyone working on a port of MINIX to the AT&T Unix PC?
>"|The machine is also called the 3B1 or 7300.
>"
>"A friend and I have just started, using the Atari ST source as a
>"base.  We don't think it will be too hard, but we're both pretty busy,
>"so it may be a while.  When we have something working, I'll post a
>"notice, and interested people can ask for the diffs.
>
>while this is an interesting exercise, i think minix is deficient in a
>few areas.  for instance, no future version of minix will ever have
>paging or swapping virtual memory; tanenbaum is actively opposed to
>including it.
>
>i'd be much more interested in a port of mach 3.0, or maybe amoeba...
>
>i also have a Modest Proposal (TM):  set up a non-profit corporation
>under the umbrella of ASCRC (a small computer software foundation?).
>get a source license from AT&T for the 3b1 (or convince them to turn
>over the source, with the obligation to support the 3b1) *and* from
>convergent/unisys for miniframe ctix.  this would be funded by selling
>shares to us on the net.  there's another benefit from funding it this
>way: as owners of the corporation, we'd have access to source (or at
>least executables) in the corporation's possession without the need
>for any kind of redistribution license.  nothing would ever be sold!
>
>why would we want to include ctix?  well, it's an evolution of the
>same code the 3b1 is based on; this makes it an easy (trivial?) port.
>but it has some valuable features, like sVr3 compatibility and
>loadable disk drivers...
>
>-- 
>Andrew Hay		+------------------------------------------------------+
>Ragged Individualist	| 			JAAAAAAANE!		       |
>AT&T-BL Ward Hill MA	|	    HOW DO YOU STOP THIS CRAZY THING?	       |
>a.d.hay at att.com		+------------------------------------------------------+

Hear, hear!!  I SECOND THE MOTION.  All in favor ....


Funny, I was just about to post a similar suggestion!!

As long as the per-share price stays reasonable, say <$50 US [no, I'm
not cheap, I just have a daughter in college and a wife in graduate
school so I'm poverty-stricken until at least late 1992] we should ALL
benefit.

We could make this a stock-issuing company (still semi-private).  People
could purchase more than one share if they wished and non-shareholders
could either purchase stock or pay a REASONABLE fee for anything
developed by the company.

What say, 3b1 folks, this makes REAL sense to me.  Who knows, maybe out
combined expertise could accomplish some things the big companies can't.

-- 
Bill Meahan (WA8TZG)             |   Programming is simple:
wwm at wa8tzg.mi.org  OR            |
uunet!mailrus!sharkey!wa8tzg!wwm |   All you have to do is put the right
"Home for Cybernetic Orphans"    |   numbers in the right memory locations!