Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Inappropriate topics. (?)
Message-ID: <16922@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 21 Aug 89 01:03:33 GMT
References: <148@trigon.UUCP> <207600029@s.cs.uiuc.edu> <941@lakesys.UUCP> <10785@smoke.BRL.MIL> <5795@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: TrishTrash Readers, Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <5795@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Most of the uses of fork() can be satisfied by the following function:

Well, every program which can be written using spawn() can also be
written using fork() and exec().

Any just about any system worth writing an operating system for of the
scope of POSIX is going to have the hardware to do memory management.
Any system without MMU hardware probably lacks sufficient address space
or commercial interest to be worth spending hundreds of millions of
dollars developing software for.  And THAT is the real reason.  What
good is an operating system for machines that don't generate gobs of
revenue, or that no one wants to buy because they are overly restrictive?

As Dennis Ritchie says, if you want PL/1, you know where to look.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                        +-Quote of the month club: ------------
VoiceNet: (512) 832-8832   Data: -8835  |  Speaking of Netnews Administration:
InterNet: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org         |  "If Bill Vajk can do it, anyone can"
UUCPNet:  {texbell|bigtex}!rpp386!jfh   +---------     -- Patricia O Tuama-----