Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!guy
From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: switchable file system support (was Re: A 'generic 68K OS' needed)
Message-ID: <3308@sun.uucp>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 22:20:09 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.3308
Posted: Sun Mar  2 22:20:09 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Mar-86 04:05:43 EST
References: <10@mit-prep.ARPA>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 39
Xref: linus net.micro.amiga:6072 net.micro.atari:2882 net.micro.mac:4951 net.micro.68k:1474

> 	Since Vaxen are ubiquitous (and often more 'respectable'
> 	you might want to read about ACPs (same concept) on vaxen.

Oh, you mean the things which, I believe, DEC got rid of in recent VMS
releases?  XQP's (eXtended QIO Processors) are their replacement, and may
also be pluggable in the same way.

> I realise that the usual "Un*x is good enough, don't force users to learn
> more concepts that they need" argument applies. I suggest that the
> discipline of embedding remote proceedure calls into your operating system
> (just so it can survive the '80s) will both help you to better organise the
> un*x concepts...

At the risk of turning this into a plug, I might point out that Sun 1) put a
switch mechanism for file systems into our UNIX, into which are plugged a
4.2BSD UNIX file system, an MS-DOS file system, and a network file system,
and 2) the network file system in question is based on remote procedure
calls, so any lack of such a mechanism in UNIX is a matter of
implementation, not concept.

> If you don't think the "un*x concepts are good enough" argument applies,
> I could be persuaded to post a similar rave about why I think embedded
> delimiters in files (eg '\n' in un*x) are a lose. My counter-examples
> would be based on files-11 (because so many people have access to it) but I
> got the idea from CDC 60-bit machines and refined it making pdp-11s emulate
> IBM mainframes (faster that real time!!).

I don't think that's what you meant.  I sincerely doubt you can make a
PDP-11 of any flavor execute 3[67]0 code faster than a 3090 can.  *Maybe*
faster than a 360/30 (easily faster than a 360/20, but whether that deserves
to be called a "mainframe" is questionable).

Nevertheless, I'd be curious to see the rave in question - posted to "net.os"
(which has seen no postings recently), *not* to net.micro.68k, since it has
nothing to do with 68000s.
-- 
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.arpa	(yes, really)