From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Sep  8 05:45:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA28278
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA28273
          for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA29626;
	Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:45:42 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:45:42 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199709081245.OAA29626@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
CC: joe@pavilion.net, doconnor@ist.flinders.edu.au, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of Mon, 08 Sep 1997 02:33:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Divert sockets.. 
References: <19970908081913.36000@pavilion.net>
	<24706.873711236@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


[Josef Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net>]
> > That's not entirely true.  Is it?  The 4000 had memory protection and the
> > same O/S.  (a500 ran 68000, a4000 ran 68030/40).

[Jordan K. Hubbard]
> It didn't matter - the way the AmigaDOS service calling conventions
> were designed, you needed to be able to share memory trivially (and
> unprotectedly) with the OS so ye old Guru Meditation was still a
> frequent visitor even with a 68040 chip inside.

This is actually not quite correct.  AmigaOS was partially designed to
allow a fairly high level of memory protection, but unfortunately some
parts allocated by user programs would still have to be publicly
available.  And nobody bothered to specify which parts that was.  A
real pity; most of the Amiga architecture was beautiful.  (LOTS of it
was better than Unix, IMHO)

Eivind.