Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bryan
From: bryan@cs.utexas.edu (Bryan Bayerdorffer @ Wit's End)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Memory Protection
Message-ID: <410@mohawk.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 89 03:46:39 GMT
References: <37410@srcsip.UUCP> <8911040008.AA13445@en.ecn.purdue.edu> <1989Nov4.031121.5495@welch.jhu.edu>
Reply-To: bryan@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: Spam Detection & Removal Squad, Austin, TX
Lines: 16
Spam-Content: Negligible

In article <1989Nov4.031121.5495@welch.jhu.edu> mjr@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
=-
=-	Let's get real, here. The computer is better suited for doing
=-the scut work like memory management - and a damn sight more patient -
=-than I am - so why should I have to waste what little brains I got to
=-do it's job ? That's what I bought the computer FOR !
=-
	Resource tracking and memory protection aren't free.  Part of the
reason they don't exist in the Amiga is to improve performance.  This is the
same reason several "new" OS explicitly support multiple lightweight tasks within the address space of a single process.  And how do you propose to do message 
passing in the presence of memory protection, hmm?  Either the kernel copies 
messages between address spaces, or you have to have shared segments that can 
be read-only for arbitrary groups of processes.  Either way, it's a performance 
hit.

So quit bitching, and quit ending your sentences with prepositions. :-)