🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <29439@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:
|In my last post I made the argument that Microsoft is making it
|unnecessarily difficult to migrate to OS/2 by not supporting VCPI.
|The responses to this were that VCPI is technically unacceptable
|in a protected-mode, preemptive multitasking operating system,

[...]

|What is an acceptable migration strategy? 1) Support VCPI under
|OS/2 and Windows. 2) Announce to the world that they have three
|years to switch to DPMI, and at that time support for VCPI will be
|withdrawn.  When you tell people what you are going to do well

You seem to have missed the point of not supporting VCPI. We cannot
insure the integrity of OS/2 if we allow VCPI. How could we proclaim to 
be a real protected operating system when a simple application can 
destroy the entire OS with a simple rep stosb? 

I agree that your argument is inviting, but technically we just can't
protect the rest of the system from a bug in your VCPI app, or a malicious
app, that is running at ring 0.