In article <email@example.com>,
Henry Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Mike Haertel)
>> * LispM's were not multi-user - they could have only
>> one logged-in user at a time, although they did
>> provide a degree of remote access.
>LispM's had a full multithreaded environment--something not seen in
>personal computers until very recently. Apple is still having difficulties
>with this one.
Of course, being multithreaded has nothing to do with being multi-user.
Take NT, for example.
>> * LispM's were not secure - the whole system, including
>> the operating system kernel, ran in a single giant
>> address space.
>A better way of saying this is that LispM's are much _more_ secure, because
>every item has its hardware datatype which is religiously checked on every
>access. LispM's weren't the machines crashing when those internet worm
>attacks were going on!
Neither were PC's running Novell. Of course LispM's wouldn't be affected -
the worm targetted only Unix machines running Sendmail (I think?).
|Jason V. Robertson <email@example.com> |
|Not speaking for Intel. |