Thread View: net.micro.atari
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Simon Kenyon
Thu, 02 Jan 1986 13:19
unix DOES need an MMU (well I think so!)
Author: Simon Kenyon
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1986 13:19
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1986 13:19
15 lines
1167 bytes
1167 bytes
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
Re: unix DOES need an MMU (well I think so!)
Author: Jim Omura
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1986 16:23
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1986 16:23
47 lines
2211 bytes
2211 bytes
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
Re: unix DOES need an MMU (well I think so!)
Author: Tex
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1986 21:13
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1986 21:13
14 lines
1203 bytes
1203 bytes
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
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads