Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!chrisl
From: chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Amiga Resource tracking & Protection.
Message-ID: <492e3b6e.1a5bf@moth.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 14 Mar 90 03:14:00 GMT
References: <208.25f3c82b@waikato.ac.nz> <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> <19460@grebyn.com>
Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Lines: 19

In article <19460@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
>In article <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes:
>	I prefer a dual-standard OS. Let it run unprotected programs (and
>when they crash, the whole OS and computer crashes) and
>protected programs concurrently.  Allow programs written for 'protected mode'
>to be run on a machine without an MMU, and consequently without protection.

What is the point of having memory protection if only SOME programs are
protected?  I don't see how you can call them "protected" since they are
NOT.  An unprotected program can crash a protected one?  Doesn't sound much
like protection to me.
 
 -Chris
-----
Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering    +1 313 763 1832
      4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109          chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu 
WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 
      900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108        +1 313 995 0300
"I hate quotations.  Tell me what you know."  - Ralph Waldo Emerson