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 >/* ---------- */ > >