Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!emory!mephisto!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!toylnd!dca
From: dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <311@toylnd.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 90 08:04:04 GMT
References: <184.25e933aa@waikato.ac.nz> <9827@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Lines: 17

In article <9827@cbmvax.commodore.com>, valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
> In article <184.25e933aa@waikato.ac.nz> hamish@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> >
> Exactly. There is no point providing memory protection at all, if one part
> of memory cannot be protected. As long as public memory is free to be stomped
> by anybody, a crash is still unrecoverable.

Perhaps I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, but
isn't this a little overstated?  I'd be happy if I could get protection from
trashing my hard disk drive which happens occasionally when a program goes
astray.  I'd also be a lot happier if a program got pulled to a halt immediately
on attempting to write to a code segment rather than letting it go blithely
along until it hit something that caused a crash.  Partial memory protection
will not make an unrecoverable crash impossible but it would make it less likely
because you would have a better chance of stomping on a protected segment.

David Albrecht