Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bunyip!metro!wolfen!zahra
From: zahra@wolfen.cc.uow.oz (Andrew Zahra Telecom)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: MMU + A3000 + AmigaOS2.0 == Non-crashing system?
Summary: phase in mmu support?
Message-ID: <6405@wolfen.cc.uow.oz>
Date: 2 Aug 90 03:53:05 GMT
References: <2489@clinet.FI> <20889@grebyn.com>
Organization: Uni of Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Lines: 16

In article <20889@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
> 
> Yes, there's been a lot of traffic in the comp.sys.amiga.xxx groups
> about this.  Unfortunately, I haven't heard a workable solution for
> existing applications, I can't think of one myself, and many net.folk
> whose opinions I respect have claimed it can't be practically done.
> 
> Therefore, the way to get MMU protection for your applications is to
> abandon application binary compatibility; and if you're going to do
> this anyway, then why not just use Unix?
> -- 

	Wouldn't it be possible to phase in mmu support by having a mechanism to
let the os know if your program can handle having an mmu protect things from it.This way the things would progressively become more stable as more of these new
prgs appear - old prgs would just have their protection mask set to have access
to all memory and they'd never know the difference...