🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15706@watdragon.waterloo.edu> swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) writes:
>In article <652@opal.tubopal.UUCP> alderaan@tubopal.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes:
>>so you are definetely not able to run a *secure* multitasking on this machine
                                          ^^^^^^^^ keep in mind
>>  If you want to realize reasonable memory segmentation (in my experience this
>>is essential for TimeSharing) you MUST have a MMU.
>Oh really?  Then how do you explain the appearance of Minix (a Unix
>look-alike) for the Atari ST?

  But look at the performance of that multitasking system.
  And, If I'd decide to write a real nasty program to run under Minix, 
the chance is 99% that I crash the WHOLE system with this program. Myself,
I am a Minix user and I think I know what I'm talking about.

  Conclusion : Minix is a very nice software to use it for learning about
time sharing, but it's useless for a *secure* (as I said above) every day
multi(tasking|user) operation because it is definetely not reliable enough.
You WILL have this problem with all multi tasking systems running on an
unmodified ST.
  I think nobody would ever have the serious idea to use Minix to run an
open access machine, for example, even if the hardware was sufficient (dialup
lines, fast disk for the non-existent Minix swapper etc.).

-- 
Thomas Cervera         | UUCP:   alderaan@tubopal.UUCP       
SysMan RKOpdp (RSTS/E) |         alderaan%tubopal.UUCP@TUB.BITNET (saves $$$)
D-1000 Berlin 30       |         ...!pyramid!unido!tub!opal!alderaan
Motzstrasze 14         | BITNET: alderaan%tub@DB0TUI11.BITNET