Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc!u3364521
From: U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: MMU + A3000 + AmigaOS2.0 == Non-crashing system?
Message-ID: <893@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 4 Aug 90 14:45:37 GMT
References: <2489@clinet.FI> <20889@grebyn.com>
Organization: I.A.E.S.R., Melbourne University
Lines: 36

G'day,

In article <20889@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:

RK> In article <2489@clinet.FI> dix@clinet.FI (Risto Kaivola) writes:

RK> 1) If the OS2.0 does not support the MMU upto the extent where all
RK> application programs could run independently, i.e not corrupting other
RK> programs' data, can you tell me what is the reason?
RK>

[Sorry to remove the context of your reply but bandwidth etc.]
[Essentially apps. don't tell the OS how they're sharing memory/messages]

It is your following point that has me thinking/followup-ing.

CKP> Therefore, the way to get MMU protection for your applications is to
CKP> abandon application binary compatibility; and if you're going to do
CKP> this anyway, then why not just use Unix?

In what sense do you mean "binary compatibility" and abondonment of it?

Could the OS set up a way for memory protection that application writers could
elect to use such that it could be possible to run _only_ memory protective
programs? {Sorry about the run on sentence}.

This might smack of the Macintosh cooperative approach to multitasking but it
is at least interesting to ask whether it could work in theory at least.

Is the OS itself "un-memory protectable"? {Boy I'm having a bad day grammar
wise. :-)}

Boy I hope you guys don't string me up for that question {heresy? :-)}.

yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.