Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!sundc!oktext!occrsh!occrsh.UUCP!gorgo.UUCP!authorplaceholder
From: bsteve@gorgo.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: segments and Unix
Message-ID: <56600001@gorgo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Nov-86 16:18:00 EST
Article-I.D.: gorgo.56600001
Posted: Fri Nov 28 16:18:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Dec-86 21:17:56 EST
References: <1744@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:jade.BERKELEY.EDU:-174400:gorgo.UUCP:56600001:000:1114
Nf-From: gorgo.UUCP!bsteve    Nov 28 15:18:00 1986


In reply to: billw@navajo.UUCP in comp.arch
who replied to: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU

>>   :
>> 6) 32 bits isn't a big enough address space. You can (maybe) make
>> something usefull out of it, but it probably won't be usefull in a few
>> years.
>>   :
>
>Give me a break.  Maybe (maybe!) 32 bits of address space wont be big
>enough for some applications in a few years, but that hardly means that
>you won't be able to do anything useful with a smaller address space.
>
>Quite a lot of people manage to get serious work done on machines
>with the good old 64K address space.  I guess they don't know that
>they are using useless programs.

Really now Bill, why should we care to tie new software architecture to
out-dated hardware architecture? The answer is that the old scumbag hardware
won't support the next generation of application software. In fact, I'm
not sure that a 64 bit address space will be sufficient in a few years.

Some people still use hollerith cards...(gak!) ->
    "You can cut a tin can with it,... but you wouldn't want to."

  Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City)
  ihnp4!occrsh!gorgo!bsteve