Re: Explaining single level store to non i people

Duane Christen wrote:

IMHO,
Your fifth point isn't really single level store, as you say,
programmers and thus apps don't care, it is the OS architecture. The
i/OS architecture could be implemented on another file system,
they are "just" objects. The Amiga (Intuition) implemented a similar
object oriented OS over a "conventional" file system back in the 80's.
IMO a superior OS that died because of the lack of advertising/inertia

Duane: That you for providing another example to demonstrate my point!

As to your forth point, There are several companies that would not exist
if Windows/*NIX OSs had to have the level of "native" security that
single level store requires of i/OS. Putting the security overhead in
the guts of the kernel and OS is much more efficient that putting it on
top of the OS.

First, in most CPU architectures, separation of address space by process
is done in the hardware. That is, it's the hardware (typically called the
"memory management unit") that protects processes from interfering with
each other, not the operating system.

Second, the security problems that plague Windows have nothing to do with
the fact that it does not implement single-level store. They have to do
with the ease of running programs with administrator privileges. Those
problems generally do not affect other, properly designed operating
systems. (But strictly speaking, that's a different issue than separation
of address space.)

Cheers! Hans