Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.minix:22448 comp.os.386bsd.misc:580 comp.os.386bsd.questions:3544 comp.os.linux:46528 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!convex!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!usenet.mcs.kent.edu!condor.mcs.kent.edu!delozier From: delozier@condor.mcs.kent.edu (Greg Delozier) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.linux Subject: Small PC OS's (Was: Re: Choosing a Unix like OS for a pc) Date: 5 Jul 1993 22:26:28 GMT Organization: Kent State University Lines: 48 Message-ID: <21a9qk$89u@usenet.mcs.kent.edu> References: <FOX.93Jun29142638@graphics.cs.nyu.edu> <741438841.9926@minster.york.ac.uk> <20sscl$brc@usenet.mcs.kent.edu> <21250i$lnm@umd5.umd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mcs.kent.edu mark@elea.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) writes: >delozier@condor.mcs.kent.edu (Greg Delozier) writes: > >>By the way, DOS/Oberon currently ships as a 32-bit operating system/ >>compiler/GUI toolkit/DOS extender/painting package/document editor/ >>techical illustrator/scripting system in well under a megabyte of files. >>I had someone ask how many floppies he should bring in to get a copy >>of Oberon, and when I told him just one, he nearly dropped. > >The last DOS machine that I got has 2.1 meg of just DOS. Plus 2 "EISA >config and utilities" disks... Are you refering to DOS + Oberon is < 1 meg >or just the Oberon part? Well, actually, just the Oberon part. However, I suspect that Oberon plus the few bits of DOS it needs might fit inside one meg. [ My quoted wish list deleted ] >You don't want much. Seriously. To the contrary, it seems I want a great deal, as evidenced by the scarcity of operating systems that meet this balance of criteria. I could (in fact, do) postulate that it's probably easier to make a *big* effective operating system than a small one, since discarding features is often harder than adding (oops adding) new ones. >I would say Netbsd meets 1-2, 4-11, 13-16. It misses 3 only because you >ask for a _simple_ image model. X is complicated, but it does a lot. Yes, it does a lot of things I don't need done, and makes me pay for the time/space tradeoffs necessary to do those things. And even so, it doesn't do everything. Rotated text, for instance? >>On a Sparcstation, maybe you can lose this overhead in sheer processor >>performance, but on my 386, for instance, X-window calls are just >>not going to do convincing 3-d animation. Oberon does. > >You are willing to give up items 8-16 so you can have 3D animation. I'm >willing to give up 3D animation so I can have all this other stuff. > Exactly and precisely. My job *requires* real-time video analysis and real-time animation, so I have a very different set of tradeoffs. Thanks for recognizing that there are tradeoffs. In the world of new PC operating systems, I consider that progress... -greg