Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!lzaz!bds
From: bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (B.SZABLAK)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Proposal to split up comp.os.minix
Summary: One more reason for differences
Message-ID: <443@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Feb 89 13:35:04 GMT
References: <109.24078AE4@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <198@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 21

In article <198@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl>, willy@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Willy Konijnenberg) writes:
>    If source is not portable, then it must:
> 	be part of the kernel
> 	be a system administration tool
> 	contain bugs

Well, there are some tools that are not system administration tools, but still
have machine dependencies. For example, the Minix ST debugger I posted 2 months
ago (mdb) includes a 68000 disassembler, and knowledge of some kernel
data structures. Probably 50% would have to be discarded in porting it to
the PC.

By the way, is there any interest in a repost? There have been significant
bug fixes and minor enhancements to the original post. The ptrace() system
call patches (part of the recent post by Howard Johnson) is required.

Finally, I haven't seen that many binaries go by on this newsgroup, and
then usually with good reason (If its too big to compile on a basic .5 Meg ST
for example, a binary is nice - gcc comes to mind [even 1 Meg won't do]).
I hope people aren't confusing compressed and uuencoded source postings as
binaries...