Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcvax!ukc!reading!bru-cc!ralph
From: ralph@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Ralph Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
Message-ID: <797@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Date: 9 Aug 89 13:32:09 GMT
References: <21282@louie.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: ralph@ccs.brunel.ac.uk (Ralph Mitchell)
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 21

In article <21282@louie.udel.EDU> XBR2D78V%DDATHD21.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (MATHIAS GAERTNER) writes:
>Well,
>the MINIX-code is not the fastest and security is not the best, but it is not
>the only multi-tasking system on this machine.
>Think at the famous OS-9 or MIRACLE (not tested here!). They all work fine,
>fast AND secure (at least OS-9).
>So, good systems are possible even without a MMU!


I think we're not talking about the sort of security that stops a user
attacking the filesystem or another user's files.  We're talking about
a process being confined to its own memory space.  The Atari MMU doesn't
keep track of which process owns which memory block, so any process could
wipe out any other process's memory...

Ralph Mitchell
-- 
JANET: ralph@uk.ac.brunel.cc  ARPA:  ralph%cc.brunel.ac.uk@cwi.nl
UUCP:  ...ukc!cc.brunel!ralph PHONE: +44 895 74000 x2561
"There's so many different worlds, so many different Suns" - Dire Straits
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Salvor Hardin, Foundation