Thinking to change to the dark side (blue)

[blubbe]

But I think it is still lacking things that are available on AOS3.9.
Things that AOS4 was/is going to have immediately at the launch.

ARexx, Installer, TCP/IP, .. ›*HOPEFULLY in 1.5*

- MOS and Peg were being done by the same company (products tied together)
- MOS was heading towards Abox instead of Qbox & own merits
- AOS was being done by a SW-only company, targetted to multiple HW platforms (there was HW agreements even)
- AOS had roadmap forward instead of sidestepping via some other OS emulation.

Not much have changed since...

1. So ?
2. Whaat ?
3. Whaat ?
4. Whaat ?

Somehow you seem Pro-OS4 but your listed resons just dont
expalin why.

[blubbe]

Ofcourse, but if AOS4.0 memory protection for SW code & unused memory is working (& the automatic stack enlargement). The difference to AOS3.x stability should be big.

Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability, but is
nice for debugging.

Stackenlargement would possibly be able to get around
a few badly programmed pieces of code.

-

But sure, MOS protects unused mem and core OS libraries.

[blubbe]

>Protecting unused memory isnt improving stability,

Yes it does.
The app with the "fuzzypointer" is more probably detected & killed before it messes up the memory of other apps/OS.

Whos going to kill it ? there is no resourcetracking
in either AOS4 or MOS. Atleast not for old apps.
More likely the user gets a window dispalying
erronuos accesses to memory and may decide to
quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous.
(me would delete the app and forget about it
But as I said, it doesnt improve stability or
in any way protect against apps crashing the system.

According to Hyperion that's very common reason for SW crash. Time will tell how it affects.

Well, they should know Okey, there is more apps that does this. But using wrong pointers is a *much* more common problem. They say this because theyve just implemented a feature that is_supposed_to_fix_this. if they didnt, they wouldnt say it. simple.

[blubbe]

At least with standard Exec Memory Lists unused/free memory is not really completely unused. Because the unused memory chunks are linked together through MemChunk structs. So code like this:

Forbid();
FreeMem(mem,100);
*mem = something;
Permit();

can cause trouble (it's bad/stupid/ugly anyway). The Forbid() protection does lock other memory allocations, that's true, but after the FreeMem() the first 8 bytes at address might be in use

Well, this is true, exec keeps track of free memory
by linking free memoryblocks. Question is if this is
considered when blocks are marked as free.

Edit: ok, I see how it could improve stability now.
 
 

[blubbe]

>But as I said, it doesnt improve stability or
in any way protect against apps crashing the system.

?
Isn't "quit the app before it does anything more dangewrous" an improvement?

I give up.

The access could as well have been to *allocated* memory
like say, some OS structure and we would have a direct DEADLY HIT, with immediate crash as result.

[blubbe]

Yes, yes.

Let's say you have 1Gb of RAM.

You have one or a few new/old application running & 100Mb allocated memory.

If you do not have memory protection at all you have almost 0% chance of detecting random memory corruption done by dodgy SW.

If you have memory protection the popability of detecting it is almost 10/1.

IMHO: That is an improvement. (even though it's still like playing "the russian rulet" when comparing to Linux MP)


Another viewpoint:

You said that it's good only for "debugging". Who will "debug" those thousands of legacy apps? Users.

Yes, they will *DEBUG* it. And MAYBE, they are kind enough
to report the bug before deleting the proggy :-)

Edit: if the author is still "present".

[blubbe]

I missed this

>1. So ?
No competition & HW alternatives. High prices. Risky. See x86 success vs apple success ...
>2. Whaat ?
Well it was. Initially I thought they were building memoryprotected boxed system (I believed the hype, stupid me). Instead they were building Abox and everything was being put in it. MOS was "just" going to grab AOS market. HUGE disappointment to me.
>3. Whaat ?
See 1.
>4. Whaat ?
It was that way. Then. IMO, more appealing. The AOS I know & love being developed forward. Connection to "world fastest growing industry" even, as those fellow work mates @ Linköping said.

>Somehow you seem Pro-OS4 but your listed resons just dont
expalin why.

There's really no use of explaining or was there? People see these things differently. Some do not see (not meaning any person particularly).

1. how is it different from Genesi ? High prices ??!??
Risky, sure, what isnt.
2. now I forgot what the initial question was, but
I fail to see what negatives you see in this.
"Huge" dissapointment that it is compatible ? Let me repeat, Whaaat ?
4. I just dont have a clue.