Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news
From: news@usc.edu (USENET News)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection.
Message-ID: <23288@usc.edu>
Date: 6 Mar 90 20:45:29 GMT
References: <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <10013@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 26

Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
From: addison@pollux.usc.edu (Richard Addison)
Path: pollux.usc.edu!addison

In article <1990Mar6.181944.22600@agate.berkeley.edu> johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
|In article <10013@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
|>Now let me rehash something clearly:
|>
|>1. Memory protection can only be implemented by redefining the MEMF_PUBLIC
|>   flag.
|>2. Then it would be trivial to implement memory protection, but *all*
|>   applications would then crash and have to be revised. Even the shared
|>   libraries on the workbench disk would have to be revised.
|>
|>If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop backwards
|>compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection, then go ahead and
|>say so, but keep in mind that the above two points are the Gospell truth.
|
|Here's my vote for the mandate.
|Document the changes needed in 1.4, and implement them in 1.5 (or 2.0).

In the documentation for AmigaDOS 1.4 describe the changes needed to
correctly support memory protection.  Then implement them for an
operating system called CAOS.  :)

--Richard Addison