Talk:GNU/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Another historical source

In The GNU Project Stallman gives a longer and more complete (and partisan) account of the project and its history.

I have removed "partisan", as I cannot agree with it. As the founder and the leader of the GNU Project, Richard Stallman is most qualified to give the world an account of how it came to be. Moreover, I am not aware of anyone within the Project who finds that his account misrepresents facts.
I agree that:
  1. Stallman's account is opinionated, as everything he writes and says is.
  2. The GNU Project's take on Free Software may be seen as "partisan" by Open Source advocates, but that does not affect the accuracy or the validity of the account (in other words, the Project may be partisan, but this history is not).
FWIW (not to take a position on the above exchange, but supply a general principle), as people never tire of pointing out on the Neutral point of view page, it is entirely possible to be fact-stating while being quite partisan. It seems to me that the recent edit-ors of the GNU page could stand to have a gander at NPOV. If you disagree with how something is presented (and a significant, well-informed number of people agree with you), then the way to proceed is to "go meta," by explicitly stating what the different competing views are. We will brook no "official views" here on Wikipedia. --LMS
As the guy who added "partisan", I'll humbly submit "personal" instead. I agree that "partisan" is a loaded term. Even though I personally like partisanship, people these days use it as a synonym for chauvinism. --The Cunctator
I find "personal" just right. Thank you for the cooperative attitude. --Anon.

"strong arm tactics

Can anyone add any facts concerning Stallman's strong arm tactics intended to coerce open source developers to license under GNU?

I think it's more like Tux Boy trying to coerce RMS to change the GPL. (This is a partisan remark). --Ed Poor


CVS is not a GNU project! It is very specifically listed on the site under "other GPL-licensed projects", not among GNU projects. GNU projects, for example, generally have their copyright explicitly transferred to the FSF, while the CVS copyright is still retained by its original authors (and then licensed under the GPL). The site also happens to host their mailing list, but that doesn't make then a GNU project either. --Lee Daniel Crocker

The Free Software Directory [1] notes: This is a GNU package. Also, GNU maintains a CVS page [2], and pages only exist for GNU packages. RCS, on which CVS is based, in also listed as a GNU program.
It is true that some GNU programs have their copyrights held by the FSF, but many others aren't. As I understand it, GNU packages are written and distributed under the auspices of the GNU project, and copyright assignment is an orthogonal issue. (As an irrelevant aside, some of the source files in the CVS sources are indeed assigned to the FSF, as you may verify.)
Still, since the GNU website seems to contradict itself on the matter and it's a very minor part of the article, it might be better to leave it out. Unless, of course, someone wants to go and dig into the history of CVS, which might be an interesting exercise. --CYD
It is somewhat contradictory, and I might also mention that even though there is a page for it, the source is in directory "/non-gnu/cvs/". In my mind, at least, I think of "GNU projects" as those that were /originated/ by the FSF, or those that were explicitly taken over by them, and primarily developed by FSF members, not merely projects from independent developers that happen to work closely with the FSF folks (like CVS).

The GNU (animal)

I think the whole Gnu (wildebeast) \ GNU (project) thing is a little confusing, particularly with the one-liner Gnu pointer at the head of the whole article. Why not make a Gnu page for the animal (with a line below that says, "Oh, and if you were looking for the GNU project ...) and a GNU page (with a line below which point you to Gnu)? I think it'd look much better than the present set-up, but I thought I'd ask you guy before I got out my clipping shears :) --Gaurav

I agree. But please don't distinguish only by lower and uppercase letters. Please use "Gnu (wildebeast)" and "GNU (project)". --Nils


gzip was not written by the GNU project, surely? Even though its name appears to stand for 'GNU zip'.

Hmm... [3] says that gzip "has been adopted by the GNU project". I'll move it to the "adopted" section, then. --pne 11:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Somehow GnuPG was left out of the list. Oversight rectified. --Ardonik 11:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


There seems to be a bit of difference in time (currently I edited it to reflect the current trend ). Initially, as it seems when you read the GNU Manifesto it was pronounced "GNU" with a none-silent G, now it's guh-noo or ˌgəˈnɯ however, somebody have an idea when and if this changed or if the manifesto was just a bit inaccurate to begin with? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:27, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

I took out the IPA symbols because when I went looking for a reference to the pronunciation that was all I found. Without a reference, the use of the IPA symbols is spurious - even if Stallman has written somewhere "guh-NOO", that's the written characters "guh-NOO" and not the spoken ones "ˌgəˈnɯ". Unless Darrien is going from recordings of Stallman saying this, which would certainly count as references (and if so, that should be stated) --David Gerard 00:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is indeed from the recordings — or at least i think it is, unless he met him in person. Stallman always pronounces it like that.
One thing though, was this something that was redifined at a later date, did he first just say that the G should be none-silent, than that it should be pronounced ˌgəˈnɯ ? At what point in time did this happen? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:52, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Please consider the following alternative first paragraph --Courtland 05:38, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
"GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix". The GNU project was launched in 1983 by Richard Stallman with the goal of creating a complete and free operating system called the GNU system, or simply GNU. Users are allowed to copy, modify and redistribute the current system under the GNU General Public License. The GNU project is now carried out under the auspices of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). GNU is pronounced guh-noo (IPA: ˌgəˈnɯ), with a hard "g", to distinguish it from the animal gnu."
I think /ˌgəˈnɯ/ isn't very accurate, for the following reasons.
  • Gnu is pronounced in one syllable. If the only difference between gnu and GNU is the letter <g>, then GNU should be pronounced in one syllable also. Listen to a German speaker saying Knoppix and you'll see it's two syllables (/knopiks/) instead of three (/kənopiks/). Likewise for GNU. It shouldn't have the schwa.
  • The vowel /ɯ/ is an unrounded vowel. The vowel in gnu is a rounded /u/.
  • guh-noo is an approximation, mentioned on the FSF home page. It's a guide, not a definition.
My proposal: phonemic /gnu/ , with the phonetic pronunciation [ˌgəˈnu] being acceptable for English speakers. --Kjoonlee 08:51, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
I edited the article to mention /gnu/ and [gəˈnu]. (Secondary stress is redundant, so I left it out.) --KJ 10:58, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
The pronunciation with schwas was a misunderstanding. We've tried to state the correct pronunciation using informal notation, not the IPA, and whatever we have tried has been misunderstood sometimes. The correct pronunciation is IPA /GNU/, and always has been. Given the precision of IPA, let's flush the misunderstandings. --rms 24:00, 2005 Jul 15 (UTC)
IPA is case-sensitive so /GNU/ is not the same as /gnu/. In particular /G/ stands for a uvular plosive and /N/ for a uvular nasal. I don't think /U/ is a standard IPA symbol but it's sometimes used as an ASCII replacement for other symbols, depending on context. At any rate /GNU/ would sound very weird indeed. :) --Haukurth 20:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I find an alternative pronunciation of the word gnu in my dictionary.That is /nju:/,the same pronunciation as "new".So I think the GNU Operating System means the "new" OS. --Kamishiro Maiku 13:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people's pronunciation of <new> is closer to /nu/ than /nju:/. RMS himself pronounces <new> and <noo> similarly, AFAIK. The FSF used to mention "guh-new" on their website, but it was changed to "guh-noo." --KJ 10:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean maybe the word GNU has a hidden meaning,or I just have hacked the name?...^^ --Kamishiro Maiku 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In Revolution OS, RMS mentions how you'd have to pronounce the /g/ if you don't want to be misunderstood. He certainly was aware of the possibility. --KJ 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it should never be pronounced "new". Richard calls this a "horrible confusion" since they've been working on it for 23 years, so it's not new. He even avoids making puns based on it. For one example, the GNU website "news" section is not allowed be called "GNUs flashes" because it would lead people to use that wrong pronunciation of GNU. Gronky 10:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"GNU" rhymes with "Canoe" --Taylor 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
RMS disagrees with you. --Kjoonlee 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between the GNU project and the GNU OS itself

There is a need to make a dinstinction between the project and the actual GNU OS. I think giving them separate articles could be a way to do that. However, it might be better to just have a section that deals with the GNU project, its history, the peoples involves, its philosophy, its relation with the FSF, the idea of free software etc. and a section that informs on GNU itself, its design, its internal working, its current status, its various components (I started a List of GNU packages just for that.) As you know, GNU is not UNIX, and this is reflected in the way it is coded. :-) What do you think? --Mathieugp 15:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's possible, although I'm not sure there will be much additional content that doesn't exist in other articles already. For instance, the idea of free software should be in Free software, GCC goings-ons in GNU Compiler Collection, etc. Since we have the list of packages now, the list here can be severely pruned to maybe just the 10 most important, and then the article doesn't look so big. The strategy I would suggest is to think of a specific fact or facts that should be added, then look around the local network of articles to see if it's there already, only add if it's not present anywhere. --Stan 17:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the content is elsewhere then this article should at least be made to make sense to the reader and should in that case mainly link to the other articles along the rough lines of say...

GNU is a free operating system conceived by Richard M. Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). It is an attempt to write a complete Unix system from scratch which is entirely free software (and primarily licensed under the GNU GPL). [reference to the GNU Project for history if article created.] For various reasons, the FSF did not decide on the sort of OS kernel they wanted to use with GNU for a while and the FSF did not start work on their kernel, Hurd, until much later than the other major OS components. For this reason, GNU is most commonly used in OS distributions with the kernel, Linux, creating GNU/Linux (commonly known as `Linux') although the GNU Hurd combination has also recently become usable (though Hurd is not close in stability to Linux). FSF comntinued developing Hurd because it works on a microkernel model which they believe results in better long-term efficiency, mantainability...[links to FSF and non-FSF GNU software, more info, &c...]

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 08:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
I agree. In fact I looked at this talk page because I was having problems making sense of the article as it confused these two things and is mostly about the GNU Project's history (which logically should go under GNU Project or be merged into Free Software Foundation. --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 08:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
I agree. It seems pretty obvious that the GNU article should primarily talk about the GNU operating system as do all other OS articles in Wikipedia. An article named GNU Projet would be the logical place to put all the history of the... GNU Project.
Who wants to do the job now? ;-) --Mathieugp 17:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am planning an entire series of articles on the free software movement, focussing on what the various programmers (like RMS and Torvalds) contributed. Particulary intriguing is how Torvalds seems to get the Lions' share of the credit for the free operating system which Stallman and the GNU project largely developed.
Only a programmer - such as my humble self - can appreciate the fine distinctions between kernel, utility, and so forth. And only a Neutral point of view expert (*blushes modestly*) like me would be able to write it.
Torvalds is more photogenic than Stallman, and he's willing to wear shoes. Plus, he's the one who finished the job. And getting the whole system named after himself was a PR coup.
Remember, there is intense conflict over getting credit - and Stallman has been overshadowed by Torvalds and Eric Raymond. RMS is more "saintly", perhaps, but they worked the press better. RMS created a philosophy, a foundation, a license, and most of the GNU/Linux system, but he couldn't get the last bit done (the "kernel"). Linux was far better at marshalling volunteers.
So who should get the credit, and what should we call the system? Don't answer that! All we're supposed to do is describe who did get the credit and what people generally call the system.
And the tale ends here abruptly, because there's nothing more to say. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 2, 2005 00:39 (UTC)
I came here to propose splitting this into a GNU Project and GNU OS article, but I see this decision has been made and is just waiting for cometh the man. I can't say I'll start and finish it today, but I will get it started. My course of action will be to start the GNU OS article, and to propose a merge of the content in GNU Hurd into that article. A new discussion on this page should be started about the future of GNU and GNU Project. I guess most of the current content of GNU should be moved to GNU Project, but we will have to decide whether GNU should redirect to GNU Project, GNU OS, or should be a disambig page (whatever we choose, we will also have to fix a lot of links to GNU, but we don't have a time limit). Gronky 15:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I will propose a merge of the GNU Hurd content into the new GNU OS article. Gronky 15:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
_If_ this is to happen, the OS article should be here, at GNU. ¦ Reisio 16:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Your blanking of the GNU OS article conflicted with my improving of it. For now I've unblanked it. Note that I haven't linke to GNU OS from the GNU article, and I haven't changed any redirects, and I haven't changed any links in articles so that they point to GNU OS. I've done nothing invasive, and everything I've done is easily reverted - although I think the opportunity to do so was jumped on too quickly :-)
The name of the article, and if it should be split, should indeed be discussed. Lets do so. In the mean time, I'm preparing what could be an article for the OS on the page called "GNU OS". That is not set in stone, it can be moved, or replace with a redirect at any time. It can be moved to GNU temporary sandbox for an OS article if the GNU OS name is problematic. Gronky 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Further, I haven't moved any content off any page and ont the GNU OS page, and before I made the GNU OS page, there was no GNU OS page, so I have not replaced anything or changed anything at all at all. I've just made a page (that is linked to by nowhere except Talk pages discussing it.) Gronky 16:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Articles are no place for sandbox activity. Use User:Gronky/GNU or something. ¦ Reisio 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

GNOME is a similarly recursive acronym

"Gnu's NOt ME" :) --Joakim 12:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is related to the GNU article how? //Ae:æ 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not even true. GNOME stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment, but that is not in use anymore. GNU's NOt ME is not, has never been, will never be, and has never even been considered to be what GNOME stood for. 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually splitting the article: names

I would like to start splitting the article - and action which seems to have consensus in favour. I initially thought it was intuitive to make one article about the OS and one about the project and have GNU either as a redirect or as a disambiguation page, but maybe not everyone will agree. The alternative is to have GNU be about the operating system, and have GNU Project be about the project. Which do people prefer? --Gronky 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Food for though: The initial announcment of the gnu project calls the OS "GNU" through out. On the other side, the title of the current GNU home page is "The GNU Operating System" and the page starts by saying "The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX like operating system which is free software: the GNU system". On neither side: the Gnus Bulletins use both terms "GNU" and "GNU OS". I guess the options are: Call it "GNU" and have "GNU OS" redirect to it, or call it "GNU OS" and have "GNU" redirect to it (or be a disambig page). It's not an earth shattering dilema. --Gronky 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
After more research, I see that the GNU Manifesto using the name "GNU" for the OS. On the other hand, it is all older documents that call it "GNU", and newer essays and documents on seem to use "GNU operating system" (176 hits) or "GNU system" (320 hits). --Gronky 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I belive the article name GNU OS is not adequate. The article should bare the official name(s) of the operating system. To my knowledge (as Gronky pointed out) the name of the system is simply GNU or sometimes GNU/Hurd, when it becomes necessary to distinguish it from the other variants, namely GNU/Linux, GNU/NetBSD, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Solaris. I think the GNU article should talk about the GNU operating system and in doing so make it easy for readers to read on the project behind GNU or the other variants of GNU if that is what they are most interested to read on. I think the example introduction written by user Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley in this talk page (above) is a very good start.
In essence, I think the GNU article should be centered on the more technical aspects of the system (what it is now, how it differs from the other systems, the programs that make up the system, its many real world uses etc.) while the GNU Projet article could deal with the political and social objectives behind the creation of the system, the philosophy of the GNU project (free software, computer users' rights etc.), the participants to the project and all historical aspects. Eventually, a History of the GNU Project or maybe History of the Free Software Foundation article could be derived from it. --Mathieugp 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
For now, I will use GNU for the OS and GNU Project for the project. I will not change any links to either of these articles in other articles, so anything I do will be easily undone or the names can easily be changed later by moving either or both pages, however, since I am acting with consensus (as far as I can tell), I would appreciate if possible reverts or moves are discussed first (probably here). --Gronky 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
note: my original plan of using GNU OS for the OS allowed much of the work to be done before any invasive changes were made to established Wikipedia articles, but of course this is not possible with the new plan of using the GNU article for the operating system and GNU Project for the project. --Gronky 17:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
As suggested by user Reisio, you can use User:Gronky/GNU or something similar to prepare your draft article. --Mathieugp 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The current plan doesn't involve any draft articles, so the correct place for what was GNU OS is a no longer an issue. --Gronky 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

opening paragraph size

Inline with Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Lead section, I've added a heading after the first paragraph. "one or two paragraphs" is the Wikipedia guide for an article of this size. The name of the heading is "Overview". I'm not sure if it's perfect, so improvements and suggestions are welcome. Meanwhile, I am happy that it's an ok heading name. I chose it after looking around at other OS articles. The reason I'm bothering to explain such a simple edit is that it has been removed by one Wikipedian and I will now re-add it. --Gronky 19:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Adding an "Overview" header adds exactly zero information content to the article (maybe negative information, because it wastes the reader's time reading it.) --CYD
Yes, but the value of headers is that they add structure, not that they add information content. --Gronky 00:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"Overview" provides no structure either. And the material in there is definitely not an overview, since it's not elaborated on anywhere else in the article. --CYD
Again yes. The word "Overview" is not the important thing. I said a few times now that if someone has a better word for that section, then implement it or suggest it. Also, this article is in a transition right now, so section names (including the "Overview" section, with whatever name it wears in the coming week) will probably change. I've already provided links to the two Wikipedia guides which explain why structure is useful and what Wikipedians have decided is a good way to structure things. If you disagree with a Wikipedia guide, raise the issue on the guide's page. Gronky 10:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Guess what, the guide is a guide, not a moral authority. "Oh noes, the guide says we should have two paragraphs in front; we have four; let's shoehorn the rest of the paragraphs into a useless section!" How silly. -- CYD

transitioning content from Project to OS

The content of the article now needs to be refactored. I'm doing some work on this and I presume others will too in the near-term future. Some refactoring will require reorganisation of content, which will mean that for some limited periods, there may be duplicate info, or info out of sequence. It can probably be assumed that the people working on this article are aware of this, so reverting changes that cause duplication which haven't been fixed in 24hrs is probably not helpful during this transition period. That's just my opinion though, and it's not a reaction to a current problem, just trying to prevent something that could slow the process or frustrate others. Gronky 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging in GNU/Hurd

I will merge the GNU/Hurd article into GNU soon. The merge tags haven't been there long, but I raised this on Talk:GNU/Hurd last Friday and have had no objections since. It's also been mentioned in the course of above discussions. There is actually not much unique content on GNU/Hurd, so merging it in will not be difficult and will not add much size to this article. Gronky 15:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I merged everything in, so as we now prune out the duplicate stuff, it'll still all be in the edit history. The only thing I didn't know what to do with was the interwiki link: [[nl:GNU/Hurd]], [[pl:GNU/Hurd]], and [[sv:GNU/Hurd]]. Any speakers of those languages are requested to give a hand :-) Gronky 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed all of the interwiki links that linked to GNU/Hurd. ~LinuxeristTux.svg E/L/T 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), putting the pronunciation at the beginning of the article is a good thing, so I put it back. Also I updated the pronunciation to more accurately reflect the one shown on GNU homepage. -- Foofy 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see section 8 above. --KJ 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Me bad. Sorry. --Foofy 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Variants and distributions

The current article has a section on the various "distributions" of GNU. I think there is a need to clearly distinguish between what are modified versions of the GNU systems (no matter who distributes it) and what we popularily call "distributions" such as those of Debian and Gentoo. In other words, Debian has a distribution of GNU/Linux (a variant of GNU), GNU/Hurd ("main" variant I guess), GNU/kFreeBSD (yet another variant) etc. The variants and the distributions are distinct, yet I don't find that clearly stated in the section on the distributions. It probably is very confusing the the average reader. -- Mathieugp 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge OS and project? huh?

The split was agree during a long thread and I see no reason to undo the consensus decision. Gronky 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost in GNU or Linux

I am lost in the distinction between GNU and Linux. I have never used either but am thinking about it. Is it realy true GNU has been developing the OS sinc 1983 and HAVE STILL NOT COME UP WITH A COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEM? And on top of that, want to add the GNU/ prefix to Linux OS's? seems ridiculous to me. If there exists a fully functional GNU OS somebody please point me to it. Flag of Canada.svg ADAM•THE•ATOM™Flag of Canada.svg 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adam The Atom. The GNU project has been working since 1983 to make a complete free software operating system exist. This goal has was achieved in 1992. The aim of the GNU project was not to develop an operating system. The aim was to make one exist. If this required developing the whole thing themselves, they would have done it, but luckily they did not have to develop the whole thing themselves. They developed most of the OS, and then with the addition of some third-party free software components, such as the windowing system (X), a typesetting system (TeX), and a kernel (Linux), a complete free software OS came into existence.
An unfortunate sequence of events caused some people, and particularly the mainstream media, to use the name "Linux" for these versions of the GNU system which included the third-party components I mentioned.
Using the name "GNU/Linux" for these versions of GNU is a way to maintain awareness that it was the GNU project that made the OS exist. If you want to try a GNU system with a Linux kernel, look for "GNU/Linux" or "Linux". For more info, see "What's in a name?", or "Linux, GNU, and freedom". Gronky 13:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes the GNU project spent years messing arround with userland tools but never managed to make a system that could stand alone due to thier idealistic kernel design, linus took some of thier tools, added his own kernel and built something that actually worked on its own. His name stuck which really pissed off the FSF zealots. Plugwash 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, wikipedia is not a chatroom. Lets keep our personal opinions out of this... Zarniwoot 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you should see the movie "revolution OS" Revolution_os and the uncut interviews of the movie if you are curious about how the GNU/linux os was born.

Also the book Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution has a lot to say about this, and it's a great enjoyable & fun book to read.

I think like Zarniwoot, that we have to talk with some respect (even if I also think that fsf was doing more "research on OS" instead of focusing in making a running OS) But they were not only making software, but were setting-up the legal and philosphical foundations of the free software movement.

I think we free software people should contribute and join efforts, instead of fight or divide ourselves.

For instance, torvalds took not only the gnu tools but also the model and some free/libre philosophy from gnu.

--Licurgo 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Expensive, obscure 68k box?

Wasn't TRIX originally for the motorola 88k? Calling the 68k "obscure" for the time would be strange to say the least. Needs verification, don't you think? (Not that I didn't consider an obscure 68000 box to be equally possible, given that use of paged memory management with a 68000 would've required extraordinary contortions of system architecture, like running a second 68000 "one step behind" the first since the 68000's instructions weren't restartable, interrupting the primary with an external bus-snooping processor [a Z80 was apparently used for this in some architectures] and so forth... so the architecture as a unit would certainly qualify for obscure.) 10:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)