Re: GEM and memory protection

[q-funk@megacom.net (Martin-Eric Racine)]

 >> I know, that it is not Gemini's fault, but why not making it better? BTW
 >> I have not hered of any Desktop that does that though I have written that in
 >> a Newsgroup a few months ago. Maybe I've missed something...
 >
 >Well, that's certainly a good idea.
 >
 >BTW; it would also be a good idea when -- on a protection violation -
 >the kernel would also display the process name of the owner of the
 >memory block that the process whas trying to access (if available).

Iv've always felt AV servers should be rewritten to make use of /pipe
or /shm so that data can be passed without violating protection. This
would not change the protocol itself, only how the server handles it.