Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!taco!hobbes!kdarling
From: kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Amiga Custom Chips - why hasn't C= made them faster?
Message-ID: <1991Apr6.065809.5536@ncsu.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 91 06:58:09 GMT
References: <CPETTERB.91Apr2105151@mickey.glacier.sim.es.com> <1991Apr2.235710.13984@news.iastate.edu> <1991Apr3.201259.8377@engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 18

> What is the big deal about memory protection and resource tracking?
> Sure, it might be a nice toy, but it wouldn't be real useful on a
> single-user system.  Is this one of those things people want just
> because Unix has it?

Personally, I think memory protection on a single-user system is far
less important than resource tracking is.

Users usually sift out (or become prepared for) programs which are
buggy enough to warrant memory protection.

But resource tracking is a prime function of an OS.  Abnormally stopping
a program should not clutter the system up with memory loss, device
blockage, etc... or require the user to run special cleanup utilities.
And programmers shouldn't have to worry about handling this common task.

The OS allocates the resources on call; it should also deallocate those
resources automatically.  "Lean and mean" is no excuse for sloppiness.
Anyway, my two cents <g>.  cheers - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>