🚀 go-pugleaf

||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.

Is it possible that you stop this fruitless discussion about whether
'UN*X' (whatever that means) needs an MMU (whatever that means)?

Yes, there are operating systems out there that you can call UN*X
and that get along without an MMU. Yes, none of the Berkeley versions
of UN*X will run comfortably without an MMU (although, as Berkeley
shows again and again, blind hacking can achieve anything, even if
it crashes all the time and is incredibly slow...).

One concluding remark: the 8086 (without an MMU) is probably more
suited to running UN*X than the 68000 without an MMU. The reason for
this is that the segmentation of its address space gives you some
kind of rudimentary memory management. You can, in principle, do
the same thing on the 68000 using indexed addressing and PC relative
addressing, but you sacrifice a lot of the power of the 68000 that
way.

Now, you all who claim that you can make a UN*X run on the ST would
do everybody a great service if you carried out what you claim is
possible. Failing that, I am personally eagerly awaiting OS9.

						Thomas.