10/21/93: RE: C Compiler Re: Msg 82309 by Delphi, | Category: Delphi - Programmers Den | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)

RE: C Compiler Re: Msg 82309

82351 21-OCT 04:09 Programmers Den
RE: C Compiler (Re: Msg 82309)
From: MARKGRIFFITH To: ILLUSIONIST

Mike,

> I thought
> about OSk, but, alot of the OSk apps are either from UNIX or UNIX
> “inspired”. I have a theory, if I want to listen to Jimi Hendrix like
> music, I will listen to Hendrix himself, not Lenny Kravitz, by the same
> token, if I want to run Unix-like stuff, I will use UNIX.

That’s like saying you’ll only drive a Toyota in Japan because it was first made

in Japan. Just because a utilitiy (such as the GNU utilities which I’m sure
you’re refering too) was first written on a UNIX system doesn’t mean it is
somehow less useful on an OS-9 box.

The GNU utilities are being ported to OS-9 because they are very good and freely

available. In a previous message, you asked if AR can be ported to UNIX (which
is already has). Wouldn’t you say, judging from your logic, that it would be
‘bad form’ to run an OS-9 utility on a UNIX box?

There are many advantages to OSK over UNIX. Believe me, I am the system
administrator for several UNIX machines. If there were an equal number of
applications for OS-9 as there are for MSDOS or UNIX, I believe OS-9 would be
the major operating system of the world.

/************* /\/\ark ************/

(uploaded with InfoXpress Ver 1.01)

4 comments to RE: C Compiler Re: Msg 82309

  • pucc_unknown

    82357 21-OCT 18:50 Programmers Den
    RE: C Compiler (Re: Msg 82351)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: MARKGRIFFITH

    I am not saying that it is “bad form” to run GNU utils and programs under OSk, I

    am just saying that, for me, since I already have a UNIX system, at this point
    OS-9/68k application wise, still isnt enough incentive to spring for an OSk
    machine..As for AR running under UNIX, no, I am talking about applications
    mostly here, Unix AR, and the DOS AR, and the OSk AR, just lets people share
    info a little easier, what I am saying is, that right now, OSk, application wise

    doesnt hold any advantage (for me) over UNIX, so why switch? esp when most of
    the OSk programming utils ARE GNU stuff (Which I already have under UNIX).
    Hopefully, (and by looking at the UG’s perpective I think there will) one day be

    more incentive for me to by an OSk box. When/If I do, I would use the GNU utils
    like everyone else, I am simply saying, right now, OSk doesnt have enough to
    make me switch.. granted, if I wont the lottery (which would be hard, since I
    dont play) I would buy an OSk machine in a snap, I would probably buy all 3
    major systems (MM/1,Sys 5,Kix/30) but until I have 35 million $$, I have to
    think about my wallet..

    Think of it this may Mark, if you REALLY wanted/needed to run Wordperfect and
    you didnt have a computer (of any sort) would you buy a UNIX box to run it, or a

    PC? (considering the price of a UNIX system vs a PC, and a copy of Wordperfect
    DOS/Windows vs a Unix version) Thinking with your wallet, I am sure you would
    take a PC with DOS. Esp when there are more apps for DOS. I myself, cant stand
    DOS, so, I took the next-best thing, application wise, UNIX.

    -* Mike

    Use whatever floats your boat…

  • pucc_unknown

    82414 24-OCT 10:41 Programmers Den
    RE: C Compiler (Re: Msg 82357)
    From: MARKGRIFFITH To: ILLUSIONIST

    Mike,

    > I am not saying that it is “bad form” to run GNU utils and programs under
    > OSk, I am just saying that, for me, since I already have a UNIX system, at
    > this point OS-9/68k application wise, still isnt enough incentive to
    > spring for an OSk machine.

    From a application users viewpoint, no, there isn’t any reason to run an OSK
    system. There just arn’t enough applications out there to justify it. I’m not
    arguing that point. However, from a programmers perspective, especially if you
    are writing device drivers, or low-level-to-the-hareware utilities, OS-9 shines.

    It all depends upon your needs.

    We are trying to get more applications for OS-9 to be written, but it is
    difficult to get people to do things. It’s the old Catch-22, no one whats to
    write good applications because they say they can’t sell enough to make it worth

    their while, and there arn’t enough people using OS-9 because there arn’t enough

    applications. (Sigh)

    /************* /\/\ark ************/

    (uploaded with InfoXpress Ver 1.01)

  • pucc_unknown

    82429 24-OCT 23:36 Programmers Den
    RE: C Compiler (Re: Msg 82414)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: MARKGRIFFITH

    agreed, from a programmers perpective, OS-9 is the best, hands down. I do do
    some programming, but I would really rather plunk down some $$ for a program and

    do what I need to do, now, than write it, and wait a few months do actually DO
    what it is I need to get done. So, I really dont need GNU stuff under OS-9 (Osk)

    I need apps. When those apps become available (on either OS-9 or OS-9000
    platforms) I will but a machine. (and hopefully someday there will be enough
    apps) OS-9000/PowerPC would be the only one I would “throw caution into the
    wind” on. Simple because it would be such a GREAT system the I would be willing
    to write programs more for it, and because PowerOPEN would still be there to
    back me up when I really need access to an app that runs under DOS,or Windows,
    or even Unix.

    -* Mike

    If only MWare would start pushing OS-9000 more. I mean, fix up VPC so it will be

    able to hold its own againt OS/2 and go for it…whats the worst that could
    happen? isnt like we have a whole heck of alot of users as it is..

  • pucc_unknown

    82442 25-OCT 18:07 Programmers Den
    RE: C Compiler (Re: Msg 82429)
    From: PHILSCHERER To: ILLUSIONIST

    Hi Mike–I agree with you about Microware getting VPC squared away. If it could
    have run Autocad, I would have an OS9000 network running in my engineering
    office right now. As it turns out we run OS2 which doesn’t hold a candle as an
    op sys.