Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!upttawa.BITNET!451061 From: 451061@upttawa.BITNET (Valentin Pepeleat) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: MEMF_LOCKED Message-ID: <8906010339.AA12100@jade.berkeley.edu> Date: 1 Jun 89 01:51:43 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 33 Deven Corzine writes in Message-ID: > In article <8905291930.AA10122@jade.berkeley.edu> 451061@UOTTAWA.BITNET > (Valentin Pepelea) writes: > > > Faster message passing, faster context switches (no need to copy > > memory and translate addresses (MOVES instruction)), but best of > > all, the ability of programs to access its other address space > > directly. I for one think its really neat to have hacks such as > > Vscreen, Dmouse, Snip-It and others which would be rather impossible > > to implement if the single addressing space was not used. > > Ah, but you see... it basically operates on the assumption that there > is not only a single address space, but no memory protection as > well... Ridiculous! Memory protection merely prevents tasks from overwriting each other. It does not prevent them from reading each other's address space. And by declaring memory to be public, writing in each other's space is allowed too. Read protected memory is useful only in multi-user systems. If you have separate address spaces, then you can not read and write each other's address space. You share data only by sending messages. That is very icky, very Unix-like. Valentin _________________________________________________________________________ "An operating system without Name: Valentin Pepelea virtual memory is an operating Phonet: (613) 231-7476 (New!) system without virtue." Bitnet: 451061@Uottawa.bitnet Usenet: Use cunyvm.cuny.edu gate - Ancient Inca Proverb Planet: 451061@acadvm1.UOttawa.CA