Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Sections
Who's Online
58 user(s) are online (48 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 58

more...
Support us!
Recent OS4 Files
OS4Depot.net



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 »


Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/20 16:26
From Norway
Posts: 2734
@whose

Quote:
pls read carefully... it won't have benefit if we didn't manage to earn more devloper's interest for the platform.


You know way, don’t get me answer that..

Quote:
This isn't possible yet, just because the development system is not even fully useable (latest SDK isn't there, gdb is more work to guess the failure than a help etc.).


Well that depends on where the application crashes, if need gdb you need compile whit –ggdb flag

Gcc source.c –o bin.exe –ggdb

If you have many object files then need you most compile whit –ggdb on every module.

Quote:
All I say is that we should concentrate right now on the OS/development system before we put useless efforts on theories that will possibly last another 5-6 years before they become reality.


Are you suggesting we should stop thinking about the future? Crazy talk

Quote:
It's all the same when such discussions emerge: Everybody is talking about fine "must have" features that are just a pancake on the top, if they will appear one day in the far future, but the flaws of the system that exist yet will be forgotten every time.


Some times you need alternatives to old flaws and we seeing improvements in OS for every update.

Quote:
Nobody is seriously using the possibilities AmigaOS bears right now.


I agree, mainly because developers are doing what they always did.

Quote:
Where are the really good games everybody wants to see?


You know way.

Quote:
Some SDL based efforts were made (ports), that's it. The often demanded development tools? Well, some half-finished ports, again. Very few AmigaOS only programs saw the light of the world until now.


You know way.

Quote:
OS4 is transformed to a never ending construction site, because lots of the new features and enhancements we just have don't get the attention they badly need because everybody is dreaming of things like MP and so on.


I think your right, developers should take some time reading some of PDF and new autodocs.

Quote:
What about AmigaInput? What about the USB subsystem? What about 2D/3D hardware acceleration? More SCSI drivers?


I managed to develop for AmigaInput, USB and PCI using the documents and freely available examples on OS4Depot, I have not looked at 3D yet, 2D stuff is not that complicated.

You should change some existing examples and asked for help, that’s how I did it.

Quote:
A real good debugger?


GDB and Grim works for me, I don’t know about you.

Quote:
More development documentation? I can ask the whole day on, there will be no satisfying answer.


We don’t need more development documents, we just need better documents, whit some good examples.

Quote:
I really know that there are not as much developers as needed, but to dream every day of new things to implement to the OS won't make the situation better.


So your complain about it because you think that's more helpful right

Quote:
All I ask is to start to use the things we have right now, polish them, make them more useful, expand them where it is badly needed (there are lots of fields to explore, polish and expand, believe me).


Well that depends, because some system modules depends on old flaws, and there for you stuck doing it the old way.

Quote:
we have enough time to implement e.g. MP half a year or a year later. AmigaOS cannot compete in the actual market in this half finished state it is in, regardless if it bears MP facilties or not. It could,


I think step in right direction, I think some once did say that “Rome Was Not Built In One Day”, nor was any of the competing operating systems, those 5 years from 1994 to 1999, where nothing happened to the OS, all the other operating systems implemented MP and SMP support.

Quote:
even without MP, if it would be in a better state than it is yet.


I disagree, before MP the computer just crashed, you did not know what was the problem, now grim pop’s and tells me it crashed in function X, after being in function y.

Quote:
P.S.: I own a OS4 system and I'm quite happy with it as a user, but not as a developer. I don't like command line developing using e.g. vi or NotePad, abcshell and a command line gcc with make.


Buy GoldED, you really should install KingCon, because of all error messages GCC generates.

Quote:
We all know that there were gui driven development tools in the past (and they weren't such bad as was said again and again)


Come on you say you’re a developer and you think its important, then please start working on it right now.

Quote:
and that other platforms have these tools for years now. But for AmigaOS such tools are simply not possible,


Its possible to make some GUI that generate source-code if that’s what your asking for, but to edit source-code not created under that tool won’t work, most likely.

If you ever have looked at MUI or reaction, you probably notice that it’s where XML like; think that’s way feeling is using XML.

Quote:
because lots of people don't see the point and keep on dreaming about things they don't need that urgently.


Funny your blaming it on those that don’t need this tools

I don’t think we need GUI driven tools urgently, but you’re welcome to write your own.


Edited by LiveForIt on 2007/9/3 15:25:04
_________________
(NutsAboutAmiga)

Basilisk II for AmigaOS4
AmigaInputAnywhere
Excalibur
and other tools and apps.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/24 17:14
Posts: 624
Honestly, I am not quite getting what this thread is about.

The question whether memory protecting is needed or not is easy to answer. Yes it is.

Why?

Well I remember the discussion on the old Amiga DE mailing list I had with some of the devs there claiming that memory protection is only for lazy programmers. I find this a very narrow-minded view. Let's face it, there is a not-so-tiny group of people out there whose only purpose in life is the destruction of data, or shoving some advertisement crap up your -insert arbitrary body part here-.

The number of spyware/adwere/trojans/viruses are staggering. So far, AmigaOS has mostly been spared because of the "don't-care" factor - most people these days are using Windows, so that is the prime target.

Any operating system aiming at growing its market has to take a few things into consideration. One is that with success comes viruses, trojans, and other malware. On a system that is mostly open, like AmigaOS, the door is open so wide that any precautions in e.g. a web browser are wasted time - they can easily be overwritten. Any malicious code can do anything to the system as long as there isn't strict memory protection in place. For that very reason, and a few others, memory protection (in the sense of FULL memory protection) is a feature that AmigaOS will inevitably get in the not-too-distant future.

Another aspect ("lazy programmers") is the ease of debugging. If a program does something illegal, it does something illegal. Period. Whether a NULL pointer access is going to be fatal or not is irrelevant, such behavior is illegal and MIGHT compromise the stability of the system. Therefore, it is mandatory that such illegal accesses can be found and eliminated. You might argue likewise that only lazy programmers need a debugger - after all, there is nothing you couldn't do with a few well-placed printf()'s.

The bottom line is, any discussion about memory protection is moot. There is not the slightest doubt that memory protection will be implemented in one of the future versions of AmigaOS. I don't believe in software solutions for this like safe languages because it enforces the selection of programming language onto a programmer, which I personally would find pretty insulting. Given the ability of a single program on AmigaOS taking down the entire system, there is no doubt that this is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Anyway, just my two euro-cents on he topic.

_________________
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/4/11 5:55
Posts: 89
@Rogue

Good reply.

I remain staggered that this is really thought to be an issue. Besides which MP has been talked about since I can remember re OS4.

It seems logical that if new programs have to be written to use memory protection, then older programs have to be sealed off somehow.

I have read Atheist's post several times, I cannot see any balance in this. Being able to snoop can in noway be compared to bringing down a system. It is like arguing seat belts should not be installed because they put creases in your suit when you drive wearing them.

If the OS ever emerges from this legal wrangle, I want to make the simple point that it stands up well as a modern OS, it needs to be a stable system and if that means resource tracking and MP, then so be it. If older programs have to be quarantined - fine. If there is some negligible speed penalty, well as an OS it is so fast unless it is done very very badly who the hell is going to notice?

This is the third time, I have in despair, looked at different OSes that might fit were I see OSes going in the future. There is nothing out there that has the promise of OS4.

There is one on the drawing board, but it will be many years I suspect before it surfaces.

Rogue, send me a post, when you can (greg.schofield@iinet.net.au), I have a suggestion, but do not want to bother you.

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2006/12/4 1:03
From Sweden
Posts: 124
@whose

Quote:

pls read carefully... it won't have benefit if we didn't manage to earn more devloper's interest for the platform.

This isn't possible yet, just because the development system is not even fully useable (latest SDK isn't there, gdb is more work to guess the failure than a help etc.).


I will read carefully, I promise!

I know the latest SDK isn't released yet and that it
causes some problems. But it doesn't make development
impossible now does it?
I can't comment on GDB or any other specifics on
coding because I'm not an active coder anymore.


Quote:

All I say is that we should concentrate right now on the OS/development system before we put useless efforts on theories that will possibly last another 5-6 years before they become reality.


I hear you. But do you really think it will take 5 years
to add these features? Now they have cleaned up the
sources and have fully ported it to PPC.
All they need now is fault free hardware so development
isn't hindered by strange bugs/issues which takes
forever to find and fix. I'm quite sure if this happen we
might see this in about 2 years.


Quote:

It's all the same when such discussions emerge: Everybody is talking about fine "must have" features that are just a pancake on the top, if they will appear one day in the far future, but the flaws of the system that exist yet will be forgotten every time.


That's what they are trying to fix by adding some really
must have features.
Yes I know some important stuff is still missing or not
fully implemented. But that's to be expected I think.


Quote:

Nobody is seriously using the possibilities AmigaOS bears right now. Where are the really good games everybody wants to see? Some SDL based efforts were made (ports), that's it. The often demanded development tools? Well, some half-finished ports, again. Very few AmigaOS only programs saw the light of the world until now.


The good games? Well if you think OS4 is going to get
any good (as in new advanced) games in any form,
be it with or without MP, you're really in for a surprise.
A negative one.

Yes, advanced development tools are indeed a important
"feature" that's lacking today. I put my hopes to BitByBit.

The lack of applications is due to lack of developers.
This may change when new hardware arrives.


Quote:

OS4 is transformed to a never ending construction site, because lots of the new features and enhancements we just have don't get the attention they badly need because everybody is dreaming of things like MP and so on.


Yes it has become that. In big part because of the trouble
between Amiga Inc. and Hyperion I think. Not really
because the OS4 team is planning new features..


Quote:

What about AmigaInput? What about the USB subsystem? What about 2D/3D hardware acceleration? More SCSI drivers? A real good debugger? More development documentation? I can ask the whole day on, there will be no satisfying answer.


AmigaInput has its developer. His progress hasn't
anything to do with what the team managers are
planning for the future.
Yes, better/larger USB support would indeed be wanted.
I think this is tetisoft's part.
IMHO too few developers and too little spare time.
We have to be serious here, they aren't getting payed
for any of this, have no, or atleast very little, time left
to code. Most of them code on their spare time.


Quote:

I really know that there are not as much developers as needed, but to dream every day of new things to implement to the OS won't make the situation better.

All I ask is to start to use the things we have right now, polish them, make them more useful, expand them where it is badly needed (there are lots of fields to explore, polish and expand, believe me).

We have enough time to implement e.g. MP half a year or a year later. AmigaOS cannot compete in the actual market in this half finished state it is in, regardless if it bears MP facilties or not. It could, even without MP, if it would be in a better state than it is yet.


Yes, I agree. But what has this to do with what the
team want OS4 to be in the future? They haven't said
that they have dropped everything just to do MP or
whatever have they?


Quote:

P.S.: I own a OS4 system and I'm quite happy with it as a user, but not as a developer. I don't like command line developing using e.g. vi or NotePad, abcshell and a command line gcc with make. We all know that there were gui driven development tools in the past (and they weren't such bad as was said again and again) and that other platforms have these tools for years now. But for AmigaOS such tools are simply not possible, because lots of people don't see the point and keep on dreaming about things they don't need that urgently.


Ok. But you can buy a IDE (Cubic) and in the future we
will have BitbyBit's AVD. This is fully GUI driven development.


Edited by samwel on 2007/9/5 18:34:31
_________________
Best Regards,

Harry

[SOLD] µA1-C, 512MB, Antec Aria
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2006/11/27 18:02
From Somerset, UK
Posts: 353
@Rogue

Quote:

Given the ability of a single program on AmigaOS taking down the entire system, there is no doubt that this is an unacceptable state of affairs.


Agreed, not strictly related to MP. You mention malware etc that we may encounter in the future as the user base grows.
Will anything be done to automatically, without user intervention, protect kickstart modules / startup-sequences etc. Perhaps at the DOS level against malware.

_________________
A1XE, A1200T, X1000 & X5000
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/20 16:26
From Norway
Posts: 2734
@Jurassicc

Quote:

Jurassicc wrote:
@Rogue

Quote:

Given the ability of a single program on AmigaOS taking down the entire system, there is no doubt that this is an unacceptable state of affairs.


Agreed, not strictly related to MP. You mention malware etc that we may encounter in the future as the user base grows.
Will anything be done to automatically, without user intervention, protect kickstart modules / startup-sequences etc. Perhaps at the DOS level against malware.


I don’t think malware is best argument for MP, because most of viruses on Windows are in fact normal programs, and system friendly scripts, if malware comes we most start to think about virues killers, and how they can be integrated part of the OS code, for example is possible ban programs form starting?

And is it possible too to implement some kind control service that updates the list of known viruses.

The best argument for MP I think is to detect bugs, improve stability.

_________________
(NutsAboutAmiga)

Basilisk II for AmigaOS4
AmigaInputAnywhere
Excalibur
and other tools and apps.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/24 17:14
Posts: 624
@LiveForIt

Quote:

LiveForIt wrote:

I don’t think malware is best argument for MP, because most of viruses on Windows are in fact normal programs, and system friendly scripts, if malware comes we most start to think about virues killers, and how they can be integrated part of the OS code, for example is possible ban programs form starting?


The biggest issue with Windows XP is that most normal users are logged in with an account that has admin rights. That means that any program started by users automatically CAN wreak havoc on the system. On MacOS X, security is more tight and you need to enter a password even if you have admin rights on your user.

Under AmigaOS, there is nothing like a superuser or Administrator, and no file is really protected by any means, so any malware started inadvertently by a user will have the fullest control over the system.

Quote:
And is it possible too to implement some kind control service that updates the list of known viruses.

The best argument for MP I think is to detect bugs, improve stability.


System Security is a big issue, and MP will help with that. As such, security is a very important argument for MP. Just imagine an Amiga as a workstation at a public place (a university or a library), you certainly wouldn't want someone to impersonate you to get a book from a library and never return it. While memory protection isn't the only requirement for it, an effective protection is not possible without it.

Of course, the possibility to prevent renegade programs from taking out a system is equally or even more important.

_________________
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/20 16:26
From Norway
Posts: 2734
@Rogue

Quote:

Under AmigaOS, there is nothing like a superuser or Administrator, and no file is really protected by any means, so any malware started inadvertently by a user will have the fullest control over the system.


I agree the problem might be file access, if program x add it self to user-startup or startup-sequnce, what if it installs it self in wbstartup drawer or maybe the virus is Trojan, and infects common PowerPC files, maybe protection can be build in to DOS.library whit some restrictions on what program can do and can not do whit out user intervention.

Quote:
Just imagine an Amiga as a workstation at a public place (a university or a library), you certainly wouldn't want someone to impersonate you to get a book from a library and never return it.


Well any Windows computer where user does not logoff can be easily be miss used, and way the book record will probably be stored on password protected SQL severer, the security will probably depend on SQL client, if it uses SQL username and passwords or NT Password Service.

If it’s a Excel or CSV file then easily deleted whit simple script, for example a AREXX, python, AmigaDOS script you get from you e-mail, if e-mail program does not worn you that file you might contain a virus, and if virus is able to masquerade as picture or some else, then you might be easily infected


Edited by LiveForIt on 2007/9/4 17:59:27
_________________
(NutsAboutAmiga)

Basilisk II for AmigaOS4
AmigaInputAnywhere
Excalibur
and other tools and apps.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/2/24 10:59
From Near Cologne, somewhere in the deep forest
Posts: 147
@samwel

Well, partly you understand my "problem"... LifeForIt doesn´t really, I think.

To make it clear: I see the need for MP in future versions of OS4, no doubt. BUT (a BIG but) I don´t see any chances to get OS4 in a more advanced state, if we change the path every now and then. I don´t believe in all drivers being useable under a new MP enabled system, I don´t see all the 3rd party libraries running under this system, I don´t see many vital parts of a future OS4 running under a MP enabled system in a relatively short time.

So, we will stay at this half finished level we just reached and we will stay there for a long time, just because we lack developers and many parts of the actual OS4 are not polished or even finished yet.

My problem still is, that development of OS4 only software will be stalled because there are no good development tools, lack of documentation, new OS-features without the right SDK (which now is stalled for an unknown time) and so on.

I have no problem with some discussion about future must have features, but I think that there are much more urgent problems we should solve right now, before we start to work actively on MP and such (and no, I´m not able to solve all this alone but I´m doing my part on it).

Btw., I just own Cubic and I´m working with it. But if you compare it to the tools other systems have, you will see it lacks some very important features (not important for me but for other developers not used to develop for AmigaOS and that are the developers we want).

I understand Rogue´s post and fully agree to it, but I think we think and dream much too far right now. There should be more work concentrated on finishing and polishing the parts we have and then going on to new and must have features with full energy. Actually I have the feeling that this energy is put on too much construction sites, so it may be used very inefficient.

Greetings

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/28 11:18
From Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Posts: 759
Hi samwel, Rogue,


Okay..... I am the last person who wants to make this post/point, but if I'm thinking it, so are others.


If AOS4.x gets MP and resource tracking (apparently there's not a consensus but some think "RT" will break old SW) then;
1) We don't have the CPU (680x0)
2) We don't have the custom chipset (OCS/ECS/AGA)
3) and ALSO we lose all old SW (Aminet....whooossshhhh!)


So, what's the difference between "AOS4.x" and AROS? Oh, besides a quad-core x86 at 2.4 GHz FULL system costing a mere US$1,700????



Oh, I'm not nearly set to pack it in though, because I HATE the alternatives.


I think a branching is needed... Two versions of AOS4.x, one with MP and resource tracking, and a "fun" one, without.

Do I think instability is fun?
Do I think virii are fun??
Do I think making it harder for coders to achieve their goals fun???

NO!!!

I do NOT think those things, but I still think there is a place for the "old ways" and also DON'T believe that SMP is ONLY possible with an MP'd OS. There have to be other ways of doing things, and "Amiga" is ALL about that. Doing it different,... Mac DOESN'T own that one*, sorry.


* "Think different."

_________________
Support Amiga Fantasy cases!!!
How to program: 1. Start with lots and lots of 0's. 10. Add 1's, liberally.
"Details for OS 5 will be made public in the fourth quarter of 2007, ..." - Bill McEwen
Whoah!!! He spoke, a bit late.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/1/26 21:48
From New Zealand
Posts: 2188
@Atheist

Rogue has already stated that old software will run in a restricted subenvironment. That way they'll still run, but won't take down the whole system if they screw up.

Hans

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/28 11:18
From Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Posts: 759
Quote:
Hans wrote:

@Atheist

Rogue has already stated that old software will run in a restricted subenvironment. That way they'll still run, but won't take down the whole system if they screw up.

Hi Hans,

I wonder if it'll be divided into two sections? Like, if you have one Gig of ram, 512 Megs operates as "unified conventional" memory under the old AOS way, and the other 512 is completely memory protected?

So, all SW in the second 512 Megs will be able to interact with each other, just as before. Then, maybe there should be some slider involved that could change the ram sizes, with minimums for both sides.

I wonder which side the ram: and RAD: disks would be on and how this would affect them?

_________________
Support Amiga Fantasy cases!!!
How to program: 1. Start with lots and lots of 0's. 10. Add 1's, liberally.
"Details for OS 5 will be made public in the fourth quarter of 2007, ..." - Bill McEwen
Whoah!!! He spoke, a bit late.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/2/1 10:22
Posts: 157
@samwel

Quote:

Yes, better/larger USB support would indeed be wanted.
I think this is tetisofts part.

I worked on USB just because the expert developers in this
area didnt have enough time and I wanted to get some bugs fixed.
I dont have the feeling to be responsible for the USB stack.
In fact I have no (completely stable) working USB hardware

My main goal was to allow OS4 to boot from USB, it does it
now, like it can boot from floppy or RESRAD: or BOOTRAD:.

The part where I really feel responsible for is the font system.

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/26 21:45
From a story that hasn't been written yet
Posts: 3454
@TetiSoft

Well, for a "mainly font guy" you are one hell of help on the OS4 ml.

Thanks for all the bugfixes and/or feature requests you dragged further on the beta list/bugtracker.

VERY much appreciated, thanks a lot

@thread

Err...yes i want one

_________________
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~ Sir Paul McCartney
-
Did everything just taste purple for a second? ~ Philip J. Fry
-
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style, ladies vomit when I smile. ~ Dr.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/2/1 10:22
Posts: 157
@Jurassicc

Quote:

Will anything be done to automatically, without user
intervention, protect kickstart modules / startup-sequences
etc. Perhaps at the DOS level against malware.

You are allowed to write-protect files.

When you think thats not enough, you are allowed to boot
from write-protected media.

When you want to protect kickstart modules in memory,
OS4 already write protects the code and read-only data/bss
sections of them.

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/28 11:18
From Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Posts: 759
I'd like to expand on what I'm saying...

Basically, because there's two flavors of AOS4.x, then whatever was desired could be done practically freely on the MP/RT version, and just general improvements could be done on the other.

When doing development, it could be done on the MP version, then recompiled for the other when the SW glitches are virtually all gone.

Besides, this leaves us free with an OS that is game dedicated (very lean), for instance, that other overhead, is it needed for games? Do many people multi-task (run a messageboard, fileshare, render?) when playing NeverWinter Nights or Quake or Everquest?

_________________
Support Amiga Fantasy cases!!!
How to program: 1. Start with lots and lots of 0's. 10. Add 1's, liberally.
"Details for OS 5 will be made public in the fourth quarter of 2007, ..." - Bill McEwen
Whoah!!! He spoke, a bit late.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2006/11/27 18:02
From Somerset, UK
Posts: 353
@TetiSoft

Quote:


You are allowed to write-protect files.


Indeed we can but thats not very user friendly. Especially in a future revision of OS4 which may or may not attract new users.

OS4 has vunerabilities that 3.X didn't and we should be prepared to deal with malware.

On a classic you had to open the case to get at the roms. It can be done with a system friendly script under OS4, even unprotecting said write-protected files.

I was thinking something of an option in DOS prefs or Workbench prefs to protect system settings.
Malware or the user would not be able to delete, modify essential system files, allow to write to rdb or remove the slb or alter filesystems.

While this option is set only things like screenmode, sound prefs etc could be altered, but not nothing that would stop a the amiga booting through to WB.

Then you could have to option to restore modified preferences.

I know this getting into windows recovery teritory but definatly something worth considering.

_________________
A1XE, A1200T, X1000 & X5000
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/24 17:14
Posts: 624
@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:

1) We don't have the CPU (680x0)


We already don't have the CPU right now, and plainly, no one will notice what CPU there is, be it a 680x0, PowerPC, or x86. Old software is emulated. (and before this debate starts again, I don't oppose an x86 port)

Quote:
2) We don't have the custom chipset (OCS/ECS/AGA)


Not a big loss if you ask me. If you really need it, use UAE, but normally, graphics cards are ultimately more powerful anyway.

Quote:
3) and ALSO we lose all old SW (Aminet....whooossshhhh!)


Why would we? Did MacOS X loose all MacOS 9 software? Did Windows XP loose all Window 98/3.1 software? No they didn't. At the very least you could still use UAE, but that will not be needed because there will be the possibility to run the old software, just in a virtualized environment, much like, as I pointed out elsewhere, the ability of the Mach kernel to run multiple OSes at the same time.

Quote:
So, what's the difference between "AOS4.x" and AROS? Oh, besides a quad-core x86 at 2.4 GHz FULL system costing a mere US$1,700????


Apart from the fact that AmigaOS 4.x offers more functionality than AROS, what exactly do you think *should* be different? Support for an old CPU? Instability? I don't think so.

Quote:
I think a branching is needed... Two versions of AOS4.x, one with MP and resource tracking, and a "fun" one, without.


For one thing, branching is not going to happen because it requires almost twice the development resources, and the two branches would be totally incompatible to each other anyway, which would incite an additional split, producing two incompatible lines of software. I don't think that makes sense...

Besides, who says that MP takes the fun out of computing? I don't really get that.

Quote:
I do NOT think those things, but I still think there is a place for the "old ways" and also DON'T believe that SMP is ONLY possible with an MP'd OS. There have to be other ways of doing things, and "Amiga" is ALL about that. Doing it different,... Mac DOESN'T own that one*, sorry.


SMP does not have anything to do with MP. SMP is perfectly possible without. However, I still do not get why you think that MP is going to be any sort of hindrance.

So far, I haven't seen one single argument against memory protection, mostly because, bluntly put, there is none.

_________________
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/2/1 10:22
Posts: 157
@Jurassicc

Quote:

OS4 has vunerabilities that 3.X didn't and we should be prepared to deal with malware.

On a classic you had to open the case to get at the roms. It can be done with a system friendly script under OS4, even unprotecting said write-protected files.

You try to construct a "new" weak point of OS4 but this was
already present in every previous version of AmigaOS.
Malware could simply call SetFunction() or patch L:Shell-Seg
or L:Disk-Validator or DEVS:AmigaOS ROM Update or DEVS:Kickstart.
Now it can also patch/modify/replace SYS:Kickstart. IMHO
this is no new stage of vulnerability.

Quote:

Malware or the user would not be able to delete, modify essential system files, allow to write to rdb or remove the slb or alter filesystems.

This was always possible and is still possible and IMHO
it will be possible in future for years, and as already
written, when your paranoia is great enough then do either
boot from a write protected medium or use another OS or
make backups.

One of the basic AmigaOS principles is "The user knows
what he does, trust the user and all applications he is
starting". When you dont trust yourself, dont start AmigaOS.

And BTW IMHO its a failure to trust any other OS that it
may be able to protect the user from malware. AFAIK there
exists no OS which cant be exploited. So why on earth
should AmigaOS which is one of the last OSes which doesnt
try what is impossible anyway now start trying to do the
impossible? We would only ask for trouble by getting the
attraction of malware coders as soon as we would would
claim AmigaOS would be secure...

Boot from a write protected medium. That is simple.
And AmigaOS is one of the few OSes which can actually do that.
When you are unable to write protect your hard disk, use
the Lock command. But be careful, it may have been hacked.
Or use the fs_plugin_crypt module. May be hacked too.

   Report Go to top

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle
Quite a regular
Joined:
2006/11/24 17:14
Posts: 624
@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:
Besides, this leaves us free with an OS that is game dedicated (very lean), for instance, that other overhead, is it needed for games? Do many people multi-task (run a messageboard, fileshare, render?) when playing NeverWinter Nights or Quake or Everquest?


Well, usually I have MSN and Skype running even while I play. You should not confuse user programs with system programs, though. There are services running that are independent of the game you are running in the foreground. Even on the Amiga this is the case. You don't want to shut down all programs while playing a game - for example, if you have a cron program running in the background, you don't want to be required to shut it down.

Again, I would really like to know what it is exactly that you dislike about MP.

_________________
Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.
   Report Go to top


« 1 2 (3) 4 5 »



[Advanced Search]


Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2016 The XOOPS Project