home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: familynews.cycor.ca!usenet
- From: gcaine@cycor.ca (gcaine)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: OS features
- Date: 10 Jan 1996 00:09:47 GMT
- Organization: Cycor Communications Inc., Coast to Coast Internet Services
- Message-ID: <610.6582T1029T804@cycor.ca>
- References: <92747544038@PAPA.NORTH.DE> <4b3h9s$1st@alterdial.UU.NET>
- <2152.6561T63T2136@cycor.ca> <4b7i18$si1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
- <2361.6563T633T582@cycor.ca> <4bcf3r$5gd@serpens.rhein.de>
- <1074.6565T1223T2767@cycor.ca> <13213432@sourcery.han.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: skt-as011.cycor.ca
- X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)
-
-
- > The reason for leaving out memory protection was that once the design was
- >frozen it was very difficult to retrofit it into the design. Message passing
- >as we know it on the Amiga forms the basics of interprocess communication
- >and effectively requires a shared, public memory space.
-
- I thought I'd dropped out of this discussion:)
-
- I take it from this, and some of your other posts that there may be
- better alternative? We can keep the shared memory, and have a good
- degree of stability?
-
- That sounds good to me, after all memory protection isn't 100%
- effective either.
-
- Gary Caine Member: Team AMIGA
-
-