[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [f-cpu] little feed-back from the libre softawre meeting



Michael Riepe wrote:

>>Concerning rings and groups, the issue is still open,
>>as several proposal and ideas are floating and careless
>>design will turn F-CPU implementations into a VAX-like,
>>or worse... helping SW and OS is ok, as long as we don't
>>do in HW all the work. It must be also "friendly" with
>>many OS approaches, so i choose the "least common denominator"
>>approach. A TLB with RWX rights and VMID is the most common
>>feature and it's straight-forward to understand for SW and
>>HW design. I'll try to continue to speak with the OS guyz
>>(linux, Hurd and *BSD) to sort this.
> 
> 
> Misquoting Bill Gates:
> 
> 	`Two protection levels should be enough for every OS.'
 >

Is that with the 640 kb of memory that is more than
ample for all the OS's too?!
Would it also be possible to have a real time bit for processes
that need to stay in memory or need that extra bit of processing
power?
BTW would not DDL's come under the same catagory as installable device
drivers? I still can't see why only DOS really made use of that idea.
( OK OS/9 was a much better OS but fewer people have used that 6809/68000
OS).



-- 
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html

*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/