🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <492e3b6e.1a5bf@moth.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu
(Chris Lang) writes:
   In article <19460@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
   writes:
   >In article <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM
    (Charles Brown) writes:
   >	I prefer a dual-standard OS. Let it run unprotected programs (and
   >when they crash, the whole OS and computer crashes) and protected
   >programs concurrently.  Allow programs written for 'protected mode'
   >to be run on a machine without an MMU, and consequently without protection.

   What is the point of having memory protection if only SOME programs are
   protected?  I don't see how you can call them "protected" since they are
   NOT.  An unprotected program can crash a protected one?  Doesn't sound much
   like protection to me.

The point is support of customers.  If you alienate all your customers by
making them incompatible with the system in one fell swoop, what have you
gained?  At least with the dual-standard idea, customers aren't alienated
right away -- they migrate to the new standard at their own pace.

Naturally, the dual-standard should be something that separates conforming
programs from non-conforming programs completely (like the standard of good
Amiga code and bad Amiga code).  New customers then choose the good code and
eliminate the bad over time.  Eventually, newer machines with built-in MMUs
(not add-in boards) might only support the good standard.
--
===================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
uunet!cimshop!davidm				Mt. View, CA  94043
===================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"