Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!Portia!maverick From: maverick@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Steve Whitney) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: GEM on Unix Box? Summary: maybe not so stupid Message-ID: <3275@Portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 10 Aug 88 06:48:15 GMT References: <8808040927.AA18322@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <168@cvbnet2.UUCP> Organization: Stanford University Lines: 23 In article <168@cvbnet2.UUCP>, jdonsbac@cvbnet2.UUCP (Jeff Donsbach, Display & Devices, x4365, 5-2 2415) writes: > From article <8808040927.AA18322@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>, by ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET ("Julian F. Reschke"): > > > > Is it true, that GEM will be ported to the 68030 machine to run as > > front end for UNIX. If true, will it be GEM/3? Will there be > > multitasking extensions to GEM as a 'Multi-Desk'? > > That would be a pretty stupid move. No one else in the UNIX world uses > GEM for there machines. X11 would be the way to go. But, this is Atari > we're talking about isn't it? :-) > I don't think it's stupid at all. It means you could run a large number of ST programs. That would be a big plus in my opinion! Assuming you could make it coexist with UNIX and still run without recompilation. Also, regarding my request for blitter information posted earlier (from a different site), I made a reference to the number an article had in comp.arch on our system. Obviously (now that I think about it) the number may (and probably will) be different at your site. Thanks! --Steve