Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Protection problem real?? (was Re: Intel Microprocessors)
Message-ID: <7030@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Aug-87 11:49:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7030
Posted: Tue Aug 18 11:49:10 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Aug-87 04:28:31 EDT
References: <1112@lznv.ATT.COM> <399@aucs.UUCP> <3225@cucca.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 20

>> In article <320@l5comp.UUCP> scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
| 
| Why? Intel goofed once again in it's architectural design. The chip IS NOT
| fully protected while running in protected mode. A user level program can
| bring the chip, and all the other users on that chip, down quite easily.
| And there's not a DAMN thing the OS writer can do about it.
| 

I have sent Mr Turner two Email letters requesting that he demonstrate
this, or retract it. I believe that it is true of the 80286, but doesn't
seem to be for the 386. I think this whole claim is the product of an
overloaded undergraduate mind.

Personal to Mr Turner:
  My cow is dead, I don't need your bull!

-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {chinet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me