🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 Mar 90 06:30:53 GMT,
valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) said:

Valentin> Your argument over shared libraries might be correct, but
Valentin> the question is moot anyway. Now let me rehash something
Valentin> clearly:

Valentin> 1. Memory protection can only be implemented by redefining
Valentin>    the MEMF_PUBLIC flag.

Well, not exactly true.  But EFFECTIVE memory protection would likely
require this.

Valentin> 2. Then it would be trivial to implement memory protection,
Valentin>    but *all* applications would then crash and have to be
Valentin>    revised. Even the shared libraries on the workbench disk
Valentin>    would have to be revised.

All applications?  Including any which don't need to allocate any
MEMF_PUBLIC memory in the first place?  (assuming the system software
itself had been updated...)

Valentin> If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead
Valentin> and drop backwards compatibility completely for the sake of
Valentin> memory protection, then go ahead and say so, but keep in
Valentin> mind that the above two points are the Gospell truth.

I don't entirely agree it's gospel truth, but backward compatibility
is important enough that this should not be done at this point.  Now,
the thought of using an MMU for VM (multiple virtual Amigas) is an
intriguiging one...  then an errant process could crash one virtual
Amiga but not the machine as a whole.  And you could run software that
takes over the machine along with normal stuff.  Neat implications.

But a bitch to implement.

Deven
-- 
Deven T. Corzine        Internet:  deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu
Snail:  2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180   Phone:  (518) 274-0327
Bitnet:  deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts     UUCP:  uunet!rpi!deven
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.