Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Spawn is impossible to define (was Re: vfork) Message-ID: Date: 7 Aug 90 13:56:27 GMT References: <5962@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <5971@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <.D+4Y53@ggpc2.ferranti.com> <5978@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <5986@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 In article <5986@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes: > No. As I pointed out, and you admitted, it's reverse is the case you > can't handle. You didn't point out anything. *I* pointed it out myself. If your memory is so poor there's no point in carrying on this conversation. I would like to point out one thing, though: > >No, just difficult. Like many things in small operating systems running > >on hardware with no MMU, you have to work harder to accomplish the same > >thing. > We have been talking about UNIX. I don't want to continue the meaningless > discussion by enlarging domain. UNIX runs, and has run, on hardware with no MMU. Small PDP-11s, 68000s... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U`