Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ames!ads.com!killer!usenet
From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: A use for protected mode after all
Message-ID: <1990Nov28.000542.21632@verity.com>
Date: 28 Nov 90 00:05:42 GMT
References: <2371.27539d74@waikato.ac.nz>
Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University)

In article <2371.27539d74@waikato.ac.nz>, ldo@waikato (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes:
>I know I'm on record as saying that memory protection isn't a very important
>thing to add to the Macintosh system. But, thinking about it, I've come
>across an exception I'd like to make to this statement: MacsBug.
>
>It would be very useful if a resident debugger could protect itself
>against other software running amuck (whether this be rogue applications,
>or the system itself). It would also greatly improve the debugger's
>ability to diagnose problems. And I think it can be done with minimal
>impact on the rest of the system.
>


I fail to see how this is different from protecting all applications
from each other, both in scope and effect.

anders