ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (02/02/91)
>That's one reasonable definition of "real" computers - that the system >crashing is considered to a system problem, and not an application >problem. (Note that I'm trying to direct this into .advocacy...) I think it's also a reasonable definition of "personal" computers that the "system" affects one person only. In such a case, it's difficult to discern the difference, to the person, between a "system" failure and an "application" failure. Both affect the person just as much. The biggest difference is whether the application is relanched or the system rebooted. A multi-tasking personal system is slightly different, because the person may be engaged in several applications, but the number of persons affected by a crash is still one. In multi-user computers, there is a "system" authority and applications are served out to multiple users. In this case it is unforgivable that the actions of one user affect another, therefore the "system" takes great pains to protect itself, and therefore other users. It is from this environment that Unix was born. My point? If you want protection, if you want a "real" computer, get Unix. You have no other choice, because you can be sure that AmigaDOS will never have the protection you're asking for, all arguments aside. Asking for it is pointless. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/