Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: AmigaOS/UNIX - A Suggestion Message-ID: <6822@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 18 Oct 90 12:24:43 GMT References: <6782@sugar.hackercorp.com> <324@pdxgate.UUCP> <1990Oct17.141554.6314@infonode.ingr.com> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 13 In article <1990Oct17.141554.6314@infonode.ingr.com> palmermg@infonode.ingr.com (Michael G. Palmer) writes: > UNIX has VM and protected modes, but AmigaDOS doesn't. So unix may > be protected from rampant amiga applications, but the amiga apps still > aren't protected from each other -- unless you run multiple copies of > AmigaDOS - one for each application you want to protect from each other. So? At worst it's no worse than we have now as far as protection for Amiga programs goes. It'd be very useful under development: can you imagine running ADB on the core image left by AmigaOS after a guru? Or, "Oh, this virtual Amiga has gurued: write to location 0. Damn, a null pointer...". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .