home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Path: netcom.com!wfblan
- From: wfblan@netcom.com (Wells Fargo Bank)
- Subject: Re: OS features
- Message-ID: <wfblanDL60p0.D0y@netcom.com>
- Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
- References: <4aj1tc$39r@candelo.dpie.gov.au> <wzskcMD1A7aez4@0dietmar.tomate.tng.oche.de> <13213377@sourcery.han.de> <569.6564T692T2329@datashopper.dk> <13213430@sourcery.han.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 09:51:00 GMT
- Sender: wfblan@netcom8.netcom.com
-
- Olaf Barthel (olsen@sourcery.han.de) wrote:
- : In Article <569.6564T692T2329@datashopper.dk>, Michael B Andersen <mba@datashopper.dk> wrote:
- : > >operating system, the message passing system is one of these aspects
- : > >(exec device model, filing system packet I/O, Intuition event distribution,
- : >
- : >
- : > Hi Olaf,
- : >
- : > If!. Our beloved OS is going to "hack it" against the big boys, it's critical
- : > that all "RE-BOOTs" be removed, in other words, IMHO people will be looking
- : > for OS's that don't "break" when programs fail, in the coming years. So I find
- : > it crutial that the operating system is crash proof, and I don't see any way
- : > that can be done without memory protection.
-
- : You are asking for reliability, not necessarily for memory protection. One
- : can be the key to the other. An alternative path that looks promising would
- : be to enhance the operating system to provide better error checking, error
- : reporting, consistency checks and safe abort procedures. Right now one badly
- : written program can trigger a domino effect. I believe that at least part of
- : the crash cascade could be avoided.
-
- : --
- : Home: Olaf Barthel, Brabeckstrasse 35, D-30559 Hannover
- : Net: olsen@sourcery.han.de
-
- I agree with Olaf here. The limitation that 'full' Memory Protection would
- bring and the performance hinderances are not what I want. Rather, a better
- way of singling out a bombed program and clearing it from memory without
- killing the whole system, and cleanly freeing up memory better than it does
- currently. I am quite happy with the OS as it stands, but don't take this
- to mean that I don't desire more. As I said, the basic sentiment of what
- Olaf said above is how I feel. Lets not worry about 'full' Memroy Protection
- at this point in the game... Maybe when we have a much faster CPU in the
- low-end machine (ie, PPC low-end), then any performance loss would be less
- important. On an 020 or 030 or even an 040 performance is still at a lower
- level than many desire, so any loss is too much. With the 060 this may not
- be as critical either, however. In any case, AT will do right by us!!
-
- Rob Bamford
- (wfblan@netcom.com)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-