Re: why the 16meg space size limit?

From: <Jon.Paris@hal.it>
>  >> Steve, Alexei's question is typical of the Rochester attitude that IBM
> knows best what is good for you.
>
> Did you get out of bed the wrong side today Leif?

maybe I did, but I think Steve's point was valid

It seemed a perfectly
> normal question to me.  You appeared to imply that lack of user spaces >
> 16meg was a problem   Alexei asked why specifically User Spaces?  Whatever
> was wrong with that?

I don't think user spaces as such were the problem. Any object has the 16Mb
limitation. All the various workarounds just make the whole thing harder to
use. An architecture with segments always runs into this problem sooner or
later. I'm just lamenting the fact that the workaround was made by abandoning
one of the strengths of the original architecture, viz. the object. It had to
happen
though at some point. We may soon come to the point where OS/400 is
running under 64-bit Linux much as DOS is running in a DOS-box under
Windoze, and S/36 is running in its own little corner under OS/400.
Much of *my* attitude is borne of sadness over this.


+---
| This is the MI Programmers Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MI400@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MI400-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MI400-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: dr2@cssas400.com
+---