simon@mcvax.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (01/02/86)
what about all the relocation fancy footwork that unix does to handle the per process data area what about multiple processes are we proposing going back to the dark ages of rsx (unmapped) where programs were linked for different load addresses memory mangement is required for two reasons protection and reloxcation the first you can live without (that is if you never have pointers which point nowhere) the second is kind of hard to live without -- simon kenyon simon@mcvax.UUCP national software centre, dublin, ireland
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (01/05/86)
I'm *really* getting tired of this discussion. I have answer Mr. Kenyon privately via 'mail' but this posting shows that it is likely he has not been receiving my mail. As such, I hope the Atari fans will bear with me and we'll all hope he reads this: In article <933@mcvax.UUCP> simon@mcvax.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) writes: > >what about all the relocation fancy footwork that unix does >to handle the per process data area OS-9 does the same or similar 'fancy footwork' without an MMU >what about multiple processes OS-9 handles multiple processes without an MMU >are we proposing going back to the dark ages of rsx (unmapped) >where programs were linked for different load addresses No. If OS-9 can do it, then you can do it with some other Unix or Unix clone. Then again, why bother, you'll have OS-9 anyway. :-) >memory mangement is required for two reasons >protection and reloxcation >the first you can live without (that is if you never have pointers >which point nowhere) >the second is kind of hard to live without I can live without the protection. I *have* been living without it on my Color Computer, running OS-9 (6809) for some time now. I think most Atari 520ST users will find it quite satisfactory. Please go look at OS-9 68K before you do any further posting. I read net.micro.atari to read about Atari. >-- >simon kenyon >simon@mcvax.UUCP >national software centre, dublin, ireland -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (01/08/86)
In article <933@mcvax.UUCP> simon@mcvax.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) writes: > >what about all the relocation fancy footwork that unix does >to handle the per process data area < Lots more "reasons" that UNIX needs an MMU > >simon kenyon Your right, UNIX DOES need an MMU. I'll call Microsoft and H-P immediately and tell them to stop selling Xenix and HPUX because they can't possibly work. Boy are they going to be pissed. Oh well, they should have asked if they needed an MMU before they went ahead and ported UNIX to hardware that doesn't contain an MMU. Bill Michael