In addition, the user programs could be protected from the kernel
and vice
versa...
Note, without memory protection we really have no lower priviledged users,
all users
are the equivelent of root. Users exist merely to provide some logical
division.
[Simon Wood]
Not 100%
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
On Thursday, June 03, 1999 1:36 PM, Alex Holden [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
: Keep networking mostly in user space. That btw is also the model things like
: the early networking work on V7 unix took.
: I was
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Holden
Sent: 04 June 1999 10:38
To: Greg Haerr
Cc: Alan Cox; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Capabilities
[ka9q]
Though as Alan pointed out, the license is pretty
restrictive (I
had always
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Darran D. Rimron wrote:
Her in the UK Demon Internet, http://www.demon.net/ distribute it free
as their default connection method for DOS, unsure if it's the same
Cool, I didn't realise that. It must be a bit modified from the amateur
radio one to be more useful for general
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
I see. So the large code model is essentially implemented by combining
functions together in a 64k segment until no more functions can be
added, then starting another segment, with all functions being called
using full seg:offset addressing mode.
The
Alan Cox wrote:
I didn't think it had any restrictions either... there are hundreds of
different versions so it seems...
Very few people realise it, but it is charged for, or $10K for a once
off OEM license. And people pay the $10K for it to build small routers
be easier to use the
A reloc table in the binary (like DOS EXE files) could work for code at
least (as long as the binaries are immutable while a process is using
them, and the programs are careful about self-modifying code).
No it doesnt
extern int foo1();
int foo2()
{
x=foo1;
x();
}
You need
On Friday, June 04, 1999 5:28 AM, Alan Cox [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: A reloc table in the binary (like DOS EXE files) could work for code at
: least (as long as the binaries are immutable while a process is using
: them, and the programs are careful about self-modifying code).
:
: No
On Thursday, June 03, 1999 7:27 PM, Alan Cox [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: This brings up my wishlist again, that we should have bcc compiler
: support for medium and large models for x86. Al Ridoch doesn't want to
: move to supporting the _far keyword. I think that it would buy us
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
In addition, the minix filesystem *must* support files 512k, something it
doesn't do
now. The libc.a file is 512k so you can't even link anything on ELKS. This
requires supporting 7 indirect blocks.
Umm it used to. What happened ?
:
Good points. If we stayed restricted to large code segments only, however,
then we could run much larger programs (like the bcc compiler, for one),
if we restricted ourselves to the following:
bcc fitted in 64K on Minix built with ack so thats a BCC problem ...
o Dont' swap code that
.with device drivers for keyboard,
mouse and screen for linux framebuffer
Can drivers be exchanged without Recompiling?
I hope this is not a dumb question, but where is the source
for your version of Nano-x? I'd like to give it a try, and maybe learn
a few things at the same time.
12 matches
Mail list logo
