>>So, you see, that's why Windows is light years away from making headway into the real world. :)
>
>THat ":)" means you're just kidding... right?

I was! <g>

>But I think the point of Mundies expression was, you would never need to do anything like an "alt F2" or "kill" in a completely stable OS. Linux is pretty stable, yes, but the vision is even beyond not "crashing the kernel".

Mundie is right in his definition of a stable OS. He is wrong in his claim that such stability is 10 years away. I experience that stability now.
But, if the "vision" is that not even apps will crash, that is only a dream. Not every app will be put through 'Space shuttle code' testing rigors, and not every app should. There is a point of diminishing returns. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. (His 2nd theorem....funny, George and I were just talking about that!). http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html


One of WinXX's biggest problems is that everything is getting thrown into the OS. Video driver instability is one reason why WinXX is unstable. NT and W2K's hardware certification programs was a step in the right direction, but it has the disadvantage of limiting the hardware W2K will run on. Linux suffers a similar limitation problem, but for different reasons.
JLK