Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!haven!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: resource tracking
Keywords: Discipline, discipline
Message-ID: <19362@grebyn.com>
Date: 9 Feb 90 16:22:06 GMT
References: <355.25C92297@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> <926@tardis.Tymnet.COM> <352@amgraf.UUCP>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 17

In article <352@amgraf.UUCP> huver@amgraf.UUCP (Huver) writes:
>Is it logical to ask an opreating system to guard against incompetent/
>ignorant/lazy programmers who do not act responsible for their own actions?

	For a time-shared multi-user operating system - Yes.  In fact,
not only should a multi-user operating system protect against
incompetent/ignorant programmers, it needs to protect against malicious/
evil/destructive ones too, those which are bent on the system's
downfall.  Unix definitely falls into this category.

	AmigaDOS does not; it's a single user PC and single user OS, and
that's why I think lack of resource tracking and memory protection is
not gross negligence, just a reasonable design compromise.  Memory
protection is expensive - the cost of an MMU.  Resource tracking
probably should have been there, and in fact CAOS (the original,
undelivered Amiga OS) had it, but Amiga had to abandon that and use
Tripos instead.