Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!tness7!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Question + Threat = Answer
Message-ID: <114@obie.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 00:48:43 GMT
References: <207600002@trsvax> <207600004@trsvax> <294@sp7040.UUCP> <1280@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 22
Summary: A shame?  Quite the contrary!

In article <1280@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) writes:
  [...much blathering about 64k segment sizes, paging, etc...]
> The problem of trying to port code between the Unix variants will also happen
> with Minix, unless someone (Andy?) takes a stand.  It would be a shame.

No, what would really be a shame would be forcing the stupid
limitations of the Intel x86 architecture on those of us bright enough
to avoid it like the plague.  Arbitrarily making the Minix compiler
create 64k segment limitations for M68000, NS32000, and even the 386
architecture would be more of a shame.  I am sure it would also be
"fixed" quickly by some intrepid hacker :-).

For those of you still struggling with the 8088 or 286, the answer is
simple: buy a processor that does not have these inherent limitations,
or learn to live with them.  Your argument sounds like a lot of the
arguments I have heard in support of the 55 mph speed limit in the
USA: "I am not safe driving my car faster than 55, so you should ALL
have to drive 55."
-- 
    /\              -  "Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -       Schiller        -     obie!wes