[Coco] origins of OS-9

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett at verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm writing an article about OS-9 for a "retro computing" magazine.
>>I'm interested in exactly how and why OS-9 came to exist and any
>>related stories.
>>
>>What I have found so far (and let me be quick to confess I am not sure
>>this is accurate) is that in the late 70s Microware sold software for
>>the 6800, a version of Lisp and a monitor/debugger of sorts called
>>RT/68MX.  One SWTPC user describes it as a replacement for Motorola's
>>MikBug.  In an A-VIDD catalog from 1977
>>(http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/avidd/Avidd.htm), it is listed as "RT/68
>>MX - Multi user ROAA for the SWTPCO M6800".   What is an ROAA?  Did
>>this multi user monitor for 6800 eventually become OS-9?
>>
>>It seems the general consensus that Motorola contracted Microware to
>>create Basic09 because they wanted to showcase their new 6809 with a
>>language that took advantage of it's power.  Does anyone know how this
>>relationship came to be?  It is suggested in more than one place that
>>Motorola introduced Microware to Tandy which eventually lead to OS-9
>>being used on the CoCo.
>>
>>OS-9 is described as being created "because once they finished
>>Basic09, they decided they needed an operating system to go with it".
>>Considering that OS-9 is much larger and more complex than B09 is, I'm
>>not sure this makes sense.  Does anyone know more detail or can anyone
>>confirm this is indeed why OS-9 came to exist?  I wonder if they were
>>already porting RT/68MX to 6809, and this is what became OS-9.  Just a
>>theory :)
>>
>>If anyone knows more detail and doesn't mind sharing, I'd would love
>>to get a better understanding of these events.
>>
>>-Aaron
>
> I am not the historian for os9, but I would make the comment that since
> basic09's success as a language is pretty well intertwined with the systems
> subfunctions, I'd have to say that os9 would have to predate basic09 somewhat
> unless they were working from a framework chart of what os9 was to become by
> the time they shot the last programmer.
>

I would have thought this too, as OS-9 is quite useful without
Basic09, but the reverse is not true.

However, as I continue researching this, I've found multiple
references that state Motorola commissioned Basic09 as part of their
6809 project.  The designers of the 6809 and Basic09 worked together
as both were created.  OS-9 is mentioned only as being created to
support Basic09.

It seems there must be more to the story, since OS-9 goes far beyond a
role as merely support for the Basic09 environment.  At some point,
serious work was put into making OS-9 a great operating system.. and
then of course MicroWare continued work on OS-9 for many years, even
dropping B09 support eventually.

I think there is a part of the story that I haven't been able to find:
how OS-9 became a powerful, full featured OS and not just a shell for
running B09.

> That last comment is because I've heard for decades now that the only time a
> program is truly finished is when somebody shoots the programmer writing it.
>
> There have been several times when I had to 'shoot myself' because what I was
> working on was working well for the job I wrote it for, and stability was
> needed for the everyday production use.  And I'd say that if its still
> working well a decade plus later, that it was worth the effort.
>
> --
> Cheers, Gene
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
>
> Too much of everything is just enough.
>                -- Bob Wier
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>