Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cepu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!scw
From: scw@cepu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: About nuking newsgroups:
Message-ID: <278@cepu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Jun-84 13:46:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: cepu.278
Posted: Wed Jun 13 13:46:44 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Jun-84 01:32:48 EDT
References: <221@homxa.UUCP> <8700001@ea.UUCP>
Reply-To: scw@cepu.UUCP (Steve Woods)
Organization: VA Wadsworth Med. Center; LA CA
Lines: 60
Keywords: PDP-11,VAX,68000,software

In article <8700001@ea.UUCP> mwm@ea.UUCP writes:
>/***** ea:net.news / nsc!chuqui /  7:27 am  Jun  4, 1984 */
>>This is NOT VAXnet. This is NOT BSDnet. This is USENET. The software that
>>we publish needs to be portable so that it can reach the widest possible
>>audience. If it doesn't we are artificially crippling the network.

Go get em!!

>So you will have us cripple our software instead?

No, how about writing good code instead.  Contrary to popular belief the
PDP-11 is becoming more and more common not rarer ( 11/23 and 11/74).

>
>>What you are telling us to do[...] the PC have 512K instead of
>>128K so that you can do everything.
>
>I have bad news, Chuqui - most IBM PC software needs more than 128K to
>run in. Most of it will run in 256K, but I suspect that the 8086's crippled
>addressing modes have more to do with that than anything else.
>

So, the 8086 loses, the PDP-11 is still a *VERY* common machine on our net.
And it can do an amazing amount of stuff in spite of its limited addressing
capability.

>>Anyone who honestly things they can ignored PDP's has no idea how many of
>>them are still out there.[...]sometimes amazingly lacking in usenet
>>software at times).

Right on chuq!!

>
>I think you have that backwards. Those who insist that everything should
>run on 1970'ish hardware are ignoring the trend to personal workstations,
>most of which are based on the 68000. I don't know of *any* personal
>workstations based on machines with small address spaces; could you
>name some for me?
>

Micro 11/23, minc, minc/23 (this can support unix, sortof) and any number
of PDP-11/23 systems in private hands.

>As for structure and efficiency, some things just flat *will not* fit on
>a PDP-11. Examples upon request.
>

Of course there are things that won't fit on a 11, there are things that
won't run on a VAX too. What does that have to do with the price of tea
in China?

>>chuq
>>From the closet of anxieties of:			Chuq Von Rospach
>/* ---------- */
>
>