From: mutazilah@gmail.com   
      
   "Scott Lurndal"  wrote in message   
   news:wGGzP.935495$t84d.159724@fx11.iad...   
      
   > >? The INT 80H used by Linux is documented too.   
   >   
   > Linux has used SYSENTER et alia since they were   
   > introduced by Intel and AMD.  INT 80 was legacy on 32-bit systems.   
      
   So? Even when INT 80H was used, it didn't mean that Linux   
   was tied to the 80386 and either the OS or the applications   
   wouldn't port to the 68000 which has a different instruction   
   to do an interrupt.   
      
   Because a wrapper existed and was expected to be used.   
      
   Just as there are wrappers provided by Microsoft for MSDOS.   
      
   You can argue (I'm not particularly arguing) that Linux's   
   documentation was better, or that it was bundled better,   
   but that is a separate issue.   
      
   You could also argue that the specific MSDOS source code   
   that you see in releases had 8086 assembler included.   
      
   So? Linux has assembler source code too. Lots of it.   
      
   You could argue that MSDOS has a higher percentage of   
   assembler source code. So? What's wrong with that? They   
   can for example create a mostly C version for the 68000   
   (I have done that myself in fact), and then decide to have   
   a hand-optimized assembler version also for the 68000 (I   
   may choose to do that myself too). So? What does that   
   prove? That just proves that engineers are doing a good   
   job spending time and effort to write assembler for a   
   particular platform. Is your complaint that MSDOS never   
   had that theoretical C version to allow easy porting?   
   CP/M was written in a language that allowed porting.   
   If Microsoft saw some market demand for a 68000 version   
   of MSDOS, I'm pretty sure their engineers could do that.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)