Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site well.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!mordor!lll-crg!well!farren
From: farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think Re: 386 Family Products
Message-ID: <318@well.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 17:53:57 EST
Article-I.D.: well.318
Posted: Tue Dec  3 17:53:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 06:38:05 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <617@edison.UUCP>
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.micro:12953 net.arch:2219

In article <617@edison.UUCP>, jso@edison.UUCP (John Owens) writes:
> 
> (In addition to the PC, UNIX runs on other machines without memory
>  management, including some bare (no MMU) 68000 machines.)
> 
   Yep. UniSoft had a version which ran on the Lisa (Macintosh XL), and I
know of no MMU in there.
  
   I would like to point out that protecting processes from one another is
a real nice idea, but in no way is it necessary.  Concurrent processes     
controlled only by a software memory management scheme have been around
for a long, long time.  With a lot of care (and a little bit of luck), it
really isn't THAT much of a problem...

-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
           USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618