Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Bob Eager Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Self-hosting and the 6502 Date: 31 Mar 2026 22:31:41 GMT Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <10qdbas$2991c$1@dont-email.me> <10qe15h$aq3$3@reader2.panix.com> <10qe21b$2han9$2@dont-email.me> <10qhen2$eu5$2@reader2.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 3/ZY0n32p3fRCHGYo+QFtAznILU9QyokVfTPnhhaNQQq/ywiH8 Cancel-Lock: sha1:o23sdC2bEIzwSAsVpPJJRYINRTE= sha256:nGSB2n9JrjXby9MV/HsHPA1CcxuINDsJblsx/EfQHQ0= User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:234517 On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 21:35:30 +0000, Dan Cross wrote: > In article , > Bob Eager wrote: >>On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:40:42 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> On 3/30/26 07:25, Dan Cross wrote: >>>>> the way the ridiculous does. >>>> >>>> Writing a proper multitasking OS usually requires some mechanism to >>>> protect the OS itself from errant user programs; this implies >>>> harwdare mechanisms that just don't exist on the 6502. >>>> >>>> >>> There's Minux, which could run on an 8086, if you want to consider >>> that a "proper" multitasking OS. Then there are things for the PDP-8 >>> and -11, >>> like TSS8. >> >>ITYM Minix. >> >>But you omit Mini-UNIX, a completely different beast that ran on a non >>memory-managed 11/20. > > As I understand it, Mini-Unix was a bit of a _tour de force_. I am not > sure I would have wanted to use it, but if all you've got is an > LSI-11.... Or an emulator... https://unixhistory.tavi.co.uk/mini-unix.html -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org