🚀 go-pugleaf

chanson@mtlookitthat.chi.il.us (Chris Hanson) writes:
>00bwanderson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Bruce Anderson) writes:
>] Second, is the OS available for the Macintosh?

>Yes and no.  It's available because CMU (from what I've heard -- some
>of this info's really old and probably has changed) will be releasing
>MacMach with the UNIX emulator and everything free or real cheap.  The
>problem is that it requires an AT&T ****ing source code license because

CMU used BSD 4.3 to build MacMach, which requires an AT&T license. CMU
was planning last summer to release it for $100 on CD to people who had
such licenses (i.e. some .edu and .com sites). It would not be available
to anyone else. They were also working on a BSD 4.4 (AT&T-free) version.

In light of the AT&T-BSDI suite, I believe CMU has scuttled all BSD 4-4-based
work. I don't know what ever happened to the 4.3-based one, but having used
a late beta of it, I can honestly say that nobody is missing anything.

If you want Mach or BSD, go with Tenon's product. It's been well received
by reviewers (not including me) and runs on all Macs. It is also BSD 4.3-based
and I expect the CMU version would have cost as much once licensing was
done. And Tenon's is much better executed (I haven't used it, but have read 
reviews, and I know what CMU's did--or didn't--do).

Mark L
-- 
/* Mark Lanett */

What I have asked on this newsgroup at least 3 times in the last 6 months
(with no response) is why CMU can't release the micro-kernel only portion
of MacMach (i.e. have it be a machine option like i386, luna88k, etc...)
Admittedly, a micro-kernel only is of limited use, but then you can make
that same argument about all of the other machine types as well.  I would
really appreciate it if *someone* from CMU could explain this...

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>What I have asked on this newsgroup at least 3 times in the last 6 months
>(with no response) is why CMU can't release the micro-kernel only portion
>of MacMach (i.e. have it be a machine option like i386, luna88k, etc...)
>Admittedly, a micro-kernel only is of limited use, but then you can make
>that same argument about all of the other machine types as well.  I would
>really appreciate it if *someone* from CMU could explain this...

MacMach was a partnership w/ Apple and has a bit of proprietary stuff in it;
that was to be covered in the general license. I don't know but imagine that
some of it was in the kernal also. I'd be surprised if ANY part of MacMach
could be distributed freely.

Mark L
-- 
/* Mark Lanett */

In article <1992Dec23.210000.7920@netcom.com>, knee@netcom.com (Mark Lanett) writes:
> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> 

[my bitching deleted]

> MacMach was a partnership w/ Apple and has a bit of proprietary stuff in it;
> that was to be covered in the general license. I don't know but imagine that
> some of it was in the kernal also. I'd be surprised if ANY part of MacMach
> could be distributed freely.

Fine, but what does any possible proprietary Apple code have to do with
requiring an AT&T license?


> Mark L
> -- 
> /* Mark Lanett */

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

[I wrote]

>> MacMach was a partnership w/ Apple and has a bit of proprietary stuff in it;
>> that was to be covered in the general license. I don't know but imagine that
>> some of it was in the kernal also. I'd be surprised if ANY part of MacMach
>> could be distributed freely.

>Fine, but what does any possible proprietary Apple code have to do with
>requiring an AT&T license?

The agreement you would have signed with CMU would have covered the AT&T and
Apple code. This would have been assuming that you already HAD an AT&T license
and the Apple code would have come for free (but NOT be freely distributable).

AT&T and Apple code in MacMach means it can't be distributed freely.

Apple code, if present in the MachMach kernal would mean that the MacMach
kernal (apart from MacMach as a whole) can't be freely distributed either.

If you want to do Mac and unix stuff at the same time on the same machine, look
into A/UX or MachTen. If you want unix source code to play with, look into
BSDI386 or 386BSD or Linux or the Hurd. If you want a free unix: 386BSD or
Linux or the Hurd again. If you want the source code to a unix on the *Mac*,
well, there is none, you'll need to port BSD 4.4 and the BSD or Mach kernals
(or Linux or the Hurd).

Note that MacMach allowed you to run the MacOS under Mach but then you
were locked out of the unix side (which is why to work with BOTH you need A/UX
or MachTen).

Glossary:
A/UX is Apple's commercial SysV unix.
MachTen is Tenon's commercial Mach+BSD unix.
BSDI386 is BSDI's 386 BSD unix.
386BSD and Linux are free unixes-in-the-works.
Hurd is the GNU's semi-mythical Mach-based better-than-unix, also in the works.

PS. I forgot MtXinu's BSD+Mach unix, commercial, 386, but source is included.

Mark L

In article <1992Dec24.005237.8069@netcom.com>, knee@netcom.com (Mark Lanett) writes:
> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
> 
> [I wrote]
> 

[deleted]

I guess someone will have to bite the bullet (possibly me if I have time) and do a
port of Mach 3.0 to the Mac and give the to the Linux people (or maybe start some
equivalent group.  Sigh...  I still don't understand why CMU couldn't have written
the drivers and such from scratch, then the 3.0 u-kernel would have been unencumbered.
Oh well, easy for me to say...

> If you want to do Mac and unix stuff at the same time on the same machine, look
> into A/UX or MachTen. If you want unix source code to play with, look into
> BSDI386 or 386BSD or Linux or the Hurd. If you want a free unix: 386BSD or
> Linux or the Hurd again. If you want the source code to a unix on the *Mac*,
> well, there is none, you'll need to port BSD 4.4 and the BSD or Mach kernals
> (or Linux or the Hurd).

Comments:

1. 386BSD - not useful, since I have a Mac.

2. BSDI386 - ditto.

3. Linux - ditto.

4. the Hurd - non-existent (and wouldn't work on the Mac anyway, at least not right away).
   I don't know what the status of this project is.  I haven't heard anything in months.

> Note that MacMach allowed you to run the MacOS under Mach but then you
> were locked out of the unix side (which is why to work with BOTH you need A/UX
> or MachTen).

This I don't understand.  I'm running A/UX now.  It runs on the naked metal and emulates
the Mac desktop via Unix magic.  Why would you "be locked out of the Unix side"?

> Glossary:
> A/UX is Apple's commercial SysV unix.
> MachTen is Tenon's commercial Mach+BSD unix.
> BSDI386 is BSDI's 386 BSD unix.
> 386BSD and Linux are free unixes-in-the-works.
> Hurd is the GNU's semi-mythical Mach-based better-than-unix, also in the works.
> 
> PS. I forgot MtXinu's BSD+Mach unix, commercial, 386, but source is included.

Absolutely not!  At least not without shelling out a lot more money than the
binary license!  I should know, I had mach386 on my PC (before I sold it).  It
was a great product, I could even build and run Mach 3.0 stuff on it.  Unfortunately,
it doesn't run on a Mac.

> Mark L

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

>This I don't understand.  I'm running A/UX now.  It runs on the naked metal and emulates
>the Mac desktop via Unix magic.  Why would you "be locked out of the Unix side"?

I said that to use _both_simultaneously_ you need A/UX or MachTen. When you
launch the MacOS from MacMach it appears to take over; although it's running
from under Mach you'd never be able to tell*. You get no access to unix from
the MacMach MacOS. With A/UX you have the CommandShell and can make unix calls;
with MachTen it's similar. Not so with MacMach.

*Actually, since the machine hung if I attempted to use AppleTalk I guess you
_could_ tell... whether AT is unuseable in this situation or that was a bug
I cannot say.

Mark L