🚀 go-pugleaf

[followups trimmed]

In article <nevin-0809950319040001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <DEJ81J.2JK@frobozz.sccsi.com>, kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin
>Brown) wrote:

>> There's no good excuse for any modern
>> OS to use CMT over PMT.
>
>Whew; I know that we had to disagree somewhere. :-)  There is one very,
>very compelling reason (and it isn't a technical one) for the MacOS in
>particular to use CMT over PMT, and that is backwards compatibility.  Why?

   But as long as you keep the CMT hooks in, you should be able to
fit a PMT system underneath the hood and have the applications
continue happily along, unaware of the rest of the world.  If those
applications are properly written and use the system libraries to
get and release resources, they can float happily along, blissfully
unaware that the world has changed under them.  (And it's not as if
Apple has been overly solicitious of nonconforming apps in the past,
either; the operating system has evolved, and nonconforming apps
have found themselves toppling off cliffs as a result.)


                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.com
                  \/