🚀 go-pugleaf

     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