Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!infotel!pollux!bobkat!m5d
From: m5d@bobkat.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX on the Atari ST
Message-ID: <486@bobkat.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Jan-87 16:53:53 EST
Article-I.D.: bobkat.486
Posted: Tue Jan 27 16:53:53 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Jan-87 00:50:37 EST
References: <454@bobkat.UUCP> <253@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: m5d@bobkat.UUCP (Mike McNally (dlsh))
Distribution: world
Organization: Digital Lynx, Inc; Dallas, TX
Lines: 25

In article <253@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu> jsm@vax1.UUCP (Jon Meltzer) writes:
>In article <454@bobkat.UUCP> m5d@bobkat.UUCP (Mike McNally (dlsh)) writes:
>>[ this is me ]
>>What a happy newsgroup this seems to be.
>>
>I'm certainly happy to get a microcomputer U**X, with source, for $80 ...

Gee, I wasn't trying to be nasty.  I think it's a good idea too.

Nobody has responded to my original query: how does the compiler (ACK?)
simulate the *complete* relocatability provided by the 8088 (small
model, of course) on the 68000?  How does the OS copy my data segment
when my process does a fork()?  What about the pointers; they're all
wrong!  I just don't get it.

I don't mean to sound like I'm down on the project; I'm just curious.

--
****                                                         ****
**** At Digital Lynx, we're almost in Garland, but not quite ****
****                                                         ****

Mike McNally                                    Digital Lynx Inc.
Software (not hardware) Person                  Dallas  TX  75243
uucp: {texsun,killer,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!m5d (214) 238-7474