home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 08:57:14 +0100
- From: Christian Lynbech <lynbech@daimi.aau.dk>
- Message-Id: <199401180757.AA09360@avignon.daimi.aau.dk>
- To: mint@atari.archive.umich.edu
- In-Reply-To: <199401171634.AA21113@ruulot.let.ruu.nl> (message from Annius Groenink on Mon, 17 Jan 1994 17:34:01 +0100 (MET))
- Subject: MiNT TO UNIX
-
- I do not agree with Annius that
- > "Re: If MiNT goes UNIX then Atari goes down the Trash Can (remember that?)"
-
- Different people has different preferences, and there is going to be
- many ordinary GEM/MULTITOS/MiNT users left which are perfectly happy
- with their TOSfs systems. MiNT is such an improvement, even to
- ordinary TOS users, and not everybody wants to put their data under
- some obscure, unknown new file format (though superior in many ways).
-
- He also said:
- > You're not going to admit in your next letter that you are satisfied
- > with a 80x25 column terminal screen, are you?
-
- No, but given the size of the standard atari B/W monitor, the text
- screen isn't that bad. There are limits to the number of windows you
- can conveniently use on such a small screen. And for a die-hard emacs
- and latex user as me, I can (and do) live with it.
-
-
- Chris Herborth writes:
- > But wouldn't it make more sense, for you, to find a really cheap used
- > '386 with 4M of RAM (_very_ common, and should be < $1000 almost anywhere)
- > and run Linux? You'd be able to set it up 100% UNIX right now, and you
- > wouldn't have to wait for the "MiNT goes UNIX" group (if it ever formed)
- > to get around to setting everything up.
-
- I *really* don't have the money at the moment. My financial situation
- is shakey enough as it is :-(, but this is of course the way to go,
- since any 68000 box is lacking power and ressources.
-
- But this isn't really the issue. I'm not the only one interested in a
- unix-like solution, and MiNT is so deceivingly close already now. I
- will not be satisfied with the old ways, I just can't help it :-).
-
-
- Chris also writes:
- > > [...stuff about i) fs standards or ii) making porting/configuring easy...]
- > Definitely the second option, but I'd certainly settle for #1 in the
- > mean-time. :-)
-
- I do not see a contradiction here. For one, a decent bourne shell and
- a fully working test program, lets you configure most GNU software
- pretty easy, already now. But some fs standard would give additional
- benefits:
-
- 1) Less need of patching.
- Adding some environment variable requirement, probably means that you
- still need to patch even GNU packages, and this is somewhat a pain,
- when the next version of (say) the fileutils are out.
-
- 2) Not absolutely dependent on sources.
- If you want a UNIX setup, you are pretty much required to have the
- sources so you can configure to your specific setup. There is no
- standard, so in theory you risk that one guy uploads the GNU diffutils
- configured with all programs in /usr/local/bin and another guy uploads
- RCS which expects diff to be A:\GNUBIN so that you just can't win.
- This project is also a commitment to ensure that there are utilities
- working within the standard (me thinks).
-
- > IMHO, we should quickly get a handle on this "standard directory tree"
- > thing; someone should propose a standard (that's still general enough
- > for people to customize however they see fit) and we should vote on it.
-
- Very true indeed, lets get this issue out of the way.
-
-
- Still dreaming,
-
-
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Christian Lynbech | Hit the philistines three times over the
- office: R0.33 (phone: 3217) | head with the Elisp reference manual.
- email: lynbech@daimi.aau.dk | - petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-