Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!gatech!ncsuvx!mcnc!rti!sas!walker From: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Minix, Unix on the Amiga, and flames on AmigaDOS braindamage... Message-ID: <1155@sas.UUCP> Date: 17 Aug 89 17:40:43 GMT References: <1610@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <195@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU> <7570@cbmvax.UUCP> <4107@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4148@cps3xx.UUCP> <7661@cbmvax.UUCP> Reply-To: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC Lines: 13 In article <7661@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: >In article <4148@cps3xx.UUCP> porkka@frith.UUCP (Joe Porkka) writes: >>In article <4107@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >>>In article <7570@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: >>>There is no reason a program should have to free its memory if the operating >>>system does it. Programs written for such an OS cannot be considered I disagree. Programs that rely on the OS to free their memory in the normal case probably are missing some bets that would allow them to free up some unused storage. Sure, rely on the OS to clean up after you if you abort or end early, but doing memory maintenance as-you-go generally isn't that expensive and can give better performance, even on VM systems. --Doug