Coherent
Will Rose
company a call when the ad first came out; the version is binary only, not
protected mode, and has drivers only for MFM and RLL hard drives. It will
run on a 286, but I can't remember if it will cope with an 8086.
I thought of getting it to play with, but Minix upgrades already keep me off
the streets quite successfully.
Good luck - Will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If heaven too had passions | Will Rose
even heaven would | UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!cw
grow old." - Li Ho. | ARPA: crash!pnet01!c...@nosc.mil
| INET: c...@pnet01.cts.com
UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!cwr
ARPA: crash!pnet01!c...@nosc.mil
INET: c...@pnet01.cts.com
John M. Brown
>Someone mentioned Coherent recently, but I've lost the message. I gave the
>company a call when the ad first came out; the version is binary only, not
>protected mode, and has drivers only for MFM and RLL hard drives. It will
>run on a 286, but I can't remember if it will cope with an 8086.
>
I have ordered this package and I am still waiting for it.. :\
I understand that it DOES run under Proteced Mode, and will work with
a 386, but not a 8088/8086, but who cares about this chips.! As for the
hd drivers, they will provide info on how to write others, and they are
planning to release ESDI/SCSI sometime in the future..
For a 100 smacks you can't go wrong.!
Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person
is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you
cluttering up the bandwidth..! :)
John Brown
interNET: jmb...@ariel.unm.edu
k...@minster.york.ac.uk
>is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you
>cluttering up the bandwidth..! :)
>
>John Brown
>interNET: jmb...@ariel.unm.edu
Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what
degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper
version of awk we could throw away bawk.
-Ken Tindell
k...@minster.york.ac.uk
Doug Ingraham
> Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what
> degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper
> version of awk we could throw away bawk.
>
> -Ken Tindell
> k...@minster.york.ac.uk
From what I have read about Coherent it is a binary only distribution.
This would preclude the use of any of Coherent's utilities under Minix.
Besides, most of the fun of Minix is fixing the gotchas. If you don't
like bawk, then fix it. Or port gawk.
--
Doug Ingraham (SysAdmin)
Lofty Pursuits (Public Access for Rapid City SD USA)
uunet!loft386!dpi
Inge Arnesen
>>is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you
>>cluttering up the bandwidth..! :)
>Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what
>degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper
>version of awk we could throw away bawk.
Well, Coherent is a UNIX compatible OS (well, that's what they all say :-)
selling for $100 and is (from what I could deduct from the add) running
in 286 protected mode. It's a rewrite and probably faster than the good
old UNIX, but it's probably a lot buggier. It's got a development kit
included, but as far as I know, it's *no source code*.
Alas, I fail to see that it can be of much value to the MINIX community.
If you really wan't a nice AWK, the GNU AWK is a good choice. I can never
be an official part of MINIX (GNU licence), but like lot's of other
GNU stuff, it will be around. As for PC MINIX, it will probably never
have true clones of the extended AWK programs and YACC parsers until
it gets out of the 64+64K limit.
As it has been pointed out by many people, there is a split in the MINIX
community between the people that want to use it as an educational tool
and those who want a cheap UNIX OS with source. Maybe some of those will
sacrifice the demand for source code and buy Coherent. Who knows ?
Inge (BoB) { in...@ifi.uio.no }
=========================================================================
== Inge Arnesen, University of Oslo, Norway. ==
== ==
John C. Archambeau
>>>Somebody else used Coherent to slam Minix, all I can say to this person
>>>is if you don't like it (Minix) then it will be nice NOT to have you
>>>cluttering up the bandwidth..! :)
>
>>Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what
>>degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper
>>version of awk we could throw away bawk.
>
>Well, Coherent is a UNIX compatible OS (well, that's what they all say :-)
>selling for $100 and is (from what I could deduct from the add) running
>in 286 protected mode. It's a rewrite and probably faster than the good
>old UNIX, but it's probably a lot buggier. It's got a development kit
>included, but as far as I know, it's *no source code*.
>
>Alas, I fail to see that it can be of much value to the MINIX community.
>If you really wan't a nice AWK, the GNU AWK is a good choice. I can never
>be an official part of MINIX (GNU licence), but like lot's of other
>GNU stuff, it will be around. As for PC MINIX, it will probably never
>have true clones of the extended AWK programs and YACC parsers until
>it gets out of the 64+64K limit.
>
>As it has been pointed out by many people, there is a split in the MINIX
>community between the people that want to use it as an educational tool
>and those who want a cheap UNIX OS with source. Maybe some of those will
>sacrifice the demand for source code and buy Coherent. Who knows ?
They benched it up to SCO Xenix 286 and according to Byte's Unix benchmark, it
beat it. Now the ad states that their kernel is 64K while SCO's is 198K.
What MWC has done, I don't know off hand. I'll find out when I order it, but
I do know that the 8086 version from using it is very impressive. Supports
large model programs, the whole 9 yards. Sure, you can go and butcher up code
to hammer it into the 64K code/64K data & stack limit, but a lot of Unix code
these days isn't meant for that. It's time to retire the 80x86 (x < 3) and
get cracking on a 386 version of Minix. Or if you still want to keep the
80x86 (x < 3) around, then develop an 8086 and 80286 specific version of
Minix. Until it becomes more usable, it will only be an academic exercise.
I sacrifice the demand for source code at work when dealing with Xenix and
SunOS. What you prey for is that the technical support staff is up to par and
will help you out if something doesn't work. Sun is ok, but slower than
molasses, and SCO...well, I'd best leave that one alone.
// JCA
/*
**--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
** Flames : /dev/null | Xenix is the ONLY thing
** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!j...@nosc.mil | Microsoft did right.
** INTERNET: j...@pnet01.cts.com
** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
**--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*/
Andy Tanenbaum
>Can we have some information on this? be nice to find out to what
>degree code can be ported between them. E.g. if Coherent has a proper
>version of awk we could throw away bawk.
I love optimists. The world would be so gloomy without them. Coherent
provides binary only. The chance that it's system call interface is
exactly the same as MINIX' is smaller than epsilon. Of course you could
modify MINIX to have the Coherent system call interface ...
Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)
don wennick
>
> Sure, you can go and butcher up code
>to hammer it into the 64K code/64K data & stack limit, but a lot of Unix code
>these days isn't meant for that.
Unfortunately, Coherent doesn't do large model. After I talked to MW's
people I cancelled my order, since I've already got Minix w/source, and
there didn't seem to be much point to getting Coherent. They told me
they only did small model so 286's could do quicker task switching. I,
of course, thought "what about all the 386/etc. machines" :-(.
Coherent seemed like an incredible deal until I found that out...
--
Someone else letting me speak for them? No way! What a riot! HAhaHAhaHAha...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Wennick | do...@rwing.UUCP | Pvt. Baldrick: "What's one plus one?"
| dwen...@polari.UUCP | Capt. Blackadder: "Oh! Wibble-wibble."
John C. Archambeau
>In article <25...@crash.cts.com> j...@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>>
>> Sure, you can go and butcher up code
>>to hammer it into the 64K code/64K data & stack limit, but a lot of Unix code
>>these days isn't meant for that.
>
>Unfortunately, Coherent doesn't do large model. After I talked to MW's
>people I cancelled my order, since I've already got Minix w/source, and
>there didn't seem to be much point to getting Coherent. They told me
>they only did small model so 286's could do quicker task switching. I,
>of course, thought "what about all the 386/etc. machines" :-(.
>
>Coherent seemed like an incredible deal until I found that out...
Are you sure? The 8086 version does do large model 8086.
Doesn't make sense that MWC would maim Unix in the name of speed. Hell, Xenix
286 swaps faster than Xenix 386 demand pages, but the difference is so minute
that it's hardly noticeable.
I'll call them and find out, I quite frankly thing that's stupid. If you're
going to sell a product, it's better stack up to the competition. If Coherent
won't do large model programs, then they have no business benching it to SCO
Xenix 286 since it does do large model.
Jim Paradis
writes:
> dwen...@polari.UUCP (don wennick) writes:
> >Coherent seemed like an incredible deal until I found [it can't do
large model]
>
> Are you sure? The 8086 version does do large model 8086.
>
> Doesn't make sense that MWC would maim Unix in the name of speed.
Well, it DOES make sense if the speed difference is great enough... and on
'286s it is. Modifying segment registers on the '286 in protected mode is
an INCREDIBLY expensive operation since each modify causes the associated
segment table descriptor (8 bytes, I believe) to be fetched from main
memory into the segment table cache (which is only one entry deep). Try
this sometime; on Xenix/286, compile the same program in both small and
large model, and you'll be able to FEEL the performance go down the toilet
in the large model. The only reason the Xenix/286 kernel is reasonably
peppy is that they hand-optimized the segment register handling. The
compiler doesn't do this optimization, though (there's a chapter on the
subject of segments and 286 Unix in Waite's "The Unix Papers". Check
it out).
When I saw the price of Coherent, the first thing I thought was, "Betcha
it can't do large model, and betcha that the 386 version runs in 286
mode". For that price, I didn't expect large model on the 286 or full
386 protected mode with demand paging. Such goodies require significant
engineering effort that can't be amortized at $99 a pop...
[side note: modifying segment registers is actually just as expensive
on the '386 as it is on the '286, but with 4-gigabyte segments you only
have to do this at context switch time...]
--
Jim Paradis, working at but not employed by DEC. (603)881-0435
par...@decvax.dec.com "Charles Babbage: Inventor of Vaporware!"
don wennick
>
>Are you sure? The 8086 version does do large model 8086.
>I'll call them and find out, I quite frankly thing that's stupid. If you're
>going to sell a product, it's better stack up to the competition. If Coherent
>won't do large model programs, then they have no business benching it to SCO
>Xenix 286 since it does do large model.
I wasn't aware of the '86 version, but that's what they told me on the phone
about the '286 release. I was pretty surprised (not to mention disappointed)
at the news, and as I said, cancelled.
I was looking at it (with that price!!!) as a real low-cost way to start
up with *nix & X11 (I'm always looking for a challenge, and figured a
port of X to a new OS would *REALLY* fit the bill) but if it won't do
large model, forget it. I'll go ahead with Xenix '286 for now.
Speaking of X, Coherent also doesn't have any graphics support, which
had me thinking along the lines of writing device driver(s) for that...
also, only MFM & RLL fixed disk support, no ESDI or SCSI... but I don't
(yet) have a problem with that.
I can only assume that, with their reputation, they'll address these
problems, but for me, now, it won't cut it. If I want no graphics,
small model, MFM based *nix, I already have it *and sources* with
Minix.
Just so you all know, the Coherent info above is culled from a couple
phone calls to them, as I thought of things. Unfortunately, I didn't
think of large model support until I saw talk of it in one of the
comp.unix.* groups. Fortunately, they hadn't shipped yet at the time.
Last time I asked them, it was going to ship the 10th, so we oughta
be hearing some first-hand news real soon now.
Tobias Erichsen
Could anyone mail me the adress where I can order Coherent?
Thank you very much...
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| /// to-pse (Tobias Erichsen) rmail: to-...@mcshh.uucp ( SubNet ) |
| /// snail: Am Seeteich 5a to-...@xfswob.uucp ( SubNet ) |
|\\\/// D-3180 Wolfsburg 23 to-pse;nct ( AMNet ) |
| \XX/ "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
RON ANTHONY
Samuel A-C
> On Monday, May 14, 1990 at 3:49:14 PM UTC-4, Tobias Erichsen wrote:
>> Hi out there!
crime brother and nothing can excuse this