Hey, recently a friend of mine mentioned something called UZI to me, which
supposedly was/is a *ix for the z80, and ported to the z280. Anyone else more
familiar on it?
oak.oakland.edu:/pub/cpm/uzi
Thor Harald Johansen wrote:
The Psion 3a have a simple memory protection of a range of address that
the
program may write to, if a write outside these is attempted then an
interrupt is trigger - I will probably attempt to use this once I have
code.
However it is possible for a
With the new 2.2 kernel out, what is the latest level of support for the
NT file system 'NTFS' and the
OS/2 file system HPFS?
It seems like the answer to the protection problem is to write a virtual
cpu to run under the kernal that would trap memory code, check it, then
execute it it's self.
Chris
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris
Hansen wrote:
It seems like the answer to the protection problem is to write a virtual
cpu to run under the kernal that would trap memory code, check it, then
execute it it's self.
If it is really for embeded systems, than it is no problems - usually
embedded
On Monday, June 07, 1999 8:43 AM, Thor Harald Johansen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: No without a special added hardware. The I8086, 8088, 80188, 80186
: have no memory protection implemented. First chip from Intel which
: has memory protection is 80286 as I know.
:
: If this is correct,
Surely the point of ELKS is that it's an *embedded* Linux system
(routers, settop boxen, etc), so even if multi-user is a possibility,
it's not a major design feature, eh? And if we're sticking the netstack
in userspace, this re-enforces the principle that "C2 compliant"
multi-user
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Chris Hansen wrote:
It seems like the answer to the protection problem is to write a virtual
cpu to run under the kernal that would trap memory code, check it, then
execute it it's self.
Chris
That would be a very bad idea anyway. The performace hit would be at
