> 
> some (including me 8-) would argue that the hp300 should be converted
> to use 8k page sizes for all of its binaries.  This would allow hp300
> and other m68k ports' binaries to be completely interchangeable, with
> no special hooks, etc.  It would cost (on average) 4k extra disk space
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
					 Worst Case

> per binary, on hp300 systems.  That cost comes out to 2-3M, given an
> average extra space per binary of 4k, and given between 500 and 750
> binaries per system (the average, i'd say, at least looking at one of
> the hp300's i've access to).

It should actually be half of that statistically, (1-2Meg).  It might be
an interesting exercise to actually use the file sizes in the tree to
figure this out.

> 
> I think that that waste of space is worthwhile, because it allows:
> 	(1) all m68k ports to use binaries interchangably, with no special
> 		hooks, options, or ineffiencies,
> 	(2) hp300's to easily (by default, even!) compile binaries
> 		that will run on the other m68k ports, and vice-versa.
> 		Last i checked, this wasn't possible, and was bloody
> 		annoying.
>

Even though i never PLAN to have one, making the hp300 the same
architecturally as the rest of the 68K system would be a big win in
space savings in he long term.

Since you would be able to use other people binaries, you wouldn't HAVE
to keep source around for everything you want to load.  Not having to
have a couple of Meg of source for a program that you just compile and
go would be a thing of the past.

Now, I'll crawl back into my FAQ hole.

BTW:  The next FAQ comes out Monday, and I am going to start converting
it to HTML next week.  Don't expect much change for the next few issues.

> 
> 
> chris
>