Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!qantel!hplabs!hao!noao!terak!mot!anasazi!john
From: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re:  Unix without an MMU
Message-ID: <475@anasazi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 09:24:33 EST
Article-I.D.: anasazi.475
Posted: Tue Jan 14 09:24:33 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jan-86 04:08:41 EST
References: <8601071721.AA03900@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <11372@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <520@enmasse.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore)
Organization: Anasazi, Phoenix Az.
Lines: 28

>(and VENIX, Xenix, ...) on IBM PCs doesn't really count as secure.
>(Ergo it's not UNIX.)  Processes can mangle each other at will.
            ^^^ ^^^^ Nonsense! It works find as UNIX. It is true
that it is not hacker protected, but most single computer UNIX's
have only one user anyway. To me UNIX is a portable environment
offering a wide selection of nifty tools. That's just what I have
here on my VENIX.
>
>In short, it's not really UNIX there, and it pretty much DOES have an
>MMU.  Better than nothing, but I wouldn't buy it.  UNIX needs at LEAST
>memory mapping.  This can be real cheap!  but the 520ST doesn't have it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You just haven't shown this. The extreme purist view that
PC UNIX's aren't really UNIX doesn't wash. On the other hand, there is
no denying the value of memory mapping
>
>-- 
>David Brownell
>EnMasse Computer Corp
>...!{harvard,talcott,genrad}!enmasse!dave


-- 
John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO)
{decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john
{hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john
terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
(602) 952-8205 (day or evening)
5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)