johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (John Lindwall) (08/17/89)
In article <1075@philmds.UUCP> leo@philmds.UUCP (Leo de Wit) writes: >.. what I meant was that a >non-multitasking machine like the ST can benefit from process >protection too. Agreed. >If you want to do something >special, OK become root and then do your stuff (very careful), then go >back being a normal user. OK. >| [I, John Lindwall, said] >|So I assume (if you were using a multi-tasking system) that you would prefer >|NOT to have process protection? I do not see the logic in this. > >No, what I meant was that I would prefer to have memory protection in >both cases. I don't see a reason why it should be more important in the >multitasking case. You can have lots of vulnerable processes in the >other case as well. Agreed. >...IMHO the most important use for VM is not protection, not paging >in additional memory when needed, but ... the processes being position- >independent! Try to implement the UNIX fork() call, you know what I mean > Good point. Now that we've hashed this subject out a bit I see that we seem to be in mutual agreement! I've really enjoyed the exchange, but I don't see any further areas to discuss. I've benefited by hearing your views, and I'm sure others have as well. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John Lindwall johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM "Above opinions are my own, not my employer's" Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John Lindwall johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM "Above opinions are my own, not my employer's" Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.