Re: [gtk-list] Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Proposed widget

[Marius Vollmer <mvo zagadka ping de>]

KC5TJA <kc5tja@topaz.axisinternet.com> writes:

> I've yet to see a single reason why an OS MUST have memory protection to
> be general purpose.  They keep saying you must have it, but I've yet to
> see proof.

This is not a thing that can be proved.

I for one couldn't work when I wasn't reasonably sure that Netscape
couldn't crash my Emacs with these all important documents in it.
[Yes, I know, Netscape can take down X11 which can lock up the whole
machine, but only because X11 *circumvents* memory protection.]

But the most important reason for memory protection is maybe
protecting multiple users on one system from each other.  Without
memory protection, as soon as you can run programs on an unprotected
OS, you can do everything.  Reading/writing other peoples files,
everything.  And in these days of `active web content', every general
purpose computer is a multi-user system.