Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!encore!paradis
From: paradis@encore.UUCP (Jim Paradis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Question + Threat = Answer
Message-ID: <2772@encore.UUCP>
Date: 9 Mar 88 14:47:25 GMT
References: <207600002@trsvax> <207600004@trsvax>
Reply-To: paradis@encore.UUCP (Jim Paradis)
Organization: The Whizzo Chocolate Company
Lines: 26

In article <207600004@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>Apparently the rest of my question went right by you.  The remainder of it
>was a concern that if the two versions of Minix differed on this point (the
>size of the executables that they could create) that there could be a drastic
>split in the programs available for the two systems.  The ST version of Minix
>with its large executables can support a lot of programs that are a real
>porting nightmare otherwise.  If this is the kind of response we can expect
>then I would hope that the ST owners don't lose any sleep over not having 
>their programs run on the IBM Minix.

I've thought about this myself, having more than once experienced frustration
at downloading some UNIX goodie off the net only to have it be far too big
to squeeze into 64K I+D.  Two things are required to break this barrier:
an OS that supports an arbitrary number of text and data segments per process,
and a compiler that can produce large-model code.  The former is not all that
difficult to do, but the latter is more of a problem.  Anyone out there with
ACK who might be able to tackle the latter problem?  (Andy has told me that
you need all of the ACK tools to produce the back-end; the source provided
with the 1.2 compiler is NOT sufficient!)

   +----------------+  Jim Paradis                  linus--+
+--+-------------+  |  Encore Computer Corp.       necntc--|
|  | E N C O R E |  |  257 Cedar Hill St.           ihnp4--+-encore!paradis
|  +-------------+--+  Marlboro MA 01752           decvax--|
+----------------+     (617) 460-0500             talcott--+
Well, what's the pleasure in THAT??!!