Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: the Multics from the black lagoon :-) Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 90 22:34:52 GMT References: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU> <20571@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <49956@sgi.sgi.com> <4791@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <2093@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Feb7.221800.804@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 11 In article khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) writes: > I beg to differ with you on this. mmap() is a huge win... The problem, I believe, is not that MULTICS provided mapped files. The problem is that they didn't provide any other form of file, and that mapped files in MULTICS were limited in size to a segment... though later multisegment files became available. How did MULTICS handle objects that didn't look like large arrays: terminals, tapes, and other things that fit well into the UNIX streams model? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'