Re: GEM and memory protection

[Julian Reschke-FJR010 <Julian_Reschke-FJR010@email.mot.com>]

draco@mi.com.pl%INTERNET wrote:

> The reason is: because the memory protection as it works now with GEM has
> something to do with system stability. Explanation: you never know what a
> new program you download from the net will kill your desktop and crash the
> whole system. The result: people don't use memory protection, because the
> memory protection makes the system less stable. A conclusion: the memory
> protection has no real use. Proposition: optionally make the GEM
> applications running in global memory and protect the rest of the system.
> 
> That would be a reasonable compromise (IMHO) between an unreal dream (full
> protection) and hard reality (no protection).

I really have a problem here: it means that correctly written programs
are
punished (real MP is taking away), just because some other programmers
don't code properly.

If you really think that this needs to be done, PLEASE make it
configurable.

Regards, jr