*BSD News Article 6008


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!math.fu-berlin.de!unidui!rrz.uni-koeln.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!ficc!peter
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: 386BSD - what a pain to install!
Message-ID: <id.GBST.RQ3@ferranti.com>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
References: <1992Sep30.035327.4082@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <id.S2QT.C03@ferranti.com> <1992Oct2.155958.29182@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:44:59 GMT
Lines: 22

I've completely lost the thread of this discussion, and I'm certainly not
about to argue that 286 segments are in any way desirable, but...

In article <1992Oct2.155958.29182@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@icarus.weber.edu writes:
> "Large model" (which differes from "Medium model" by frequent segment register
> reloads) has always seemed like a kludge to me, mostly because of the 286
> being set up for 64K segments in the first place.

The kludge is the 64K segments. Large model is a reasonable response. Intel
even uses it (we're using Intel Fortran, PL/M, and C compilers, which is why
we're still using Intel Xenix because Intel in their infinite wisdom decided
that MS-DOS was a better software development platform than UNIX and dumped
the UNIX compiler products (though they still use them internally: do as I
say, not as I do, I suppose)) for all their languages.

In any case, you can always buy a used TRS-80 model 16 and run Xenix on a
68000.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                          `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                               'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                           Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid ?