🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vmdo8$qml@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dbowie446@aol.com (DBowie446) writes:
>The assumption there being that the vast majority of users will
>greatly benefit from Protected Memory schemes when they are
>introduced. They won't: *programmers* will. To the end user, a
>radical change in the way your machine multitasks your
>applications or juggles your available RAM will be invisible. To

Not true. Firstly if one app dies I can continue with the others and not
lose all my work, reboot wait, run it all again. Secondly there are tricks
like copy on write that are rather hard to do without protection and
massively improve performance of some operations.

>that they hardly matter. Further, Occam's Razor aside, assuming
>that *any* protected memory scheme will mean the end of viruses
>or systemwide software crashes is in clear violation of my other
>favorite law, Murphy's...

Yes.

-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  iialan@www.linux.org.uk   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
Redistribution of this message via the Microsoft Network is prohibited
Do you trust your web client. <IMG src="file:/dev/zero"><IMG src="file:/com1:">