>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.
You said that occasionally Linux has a difficult time recovering from a crashed app, resulting in the operator performing a key stroke and relogging in to the OS.
>But, if the "vision" is that not even apps will crash, that is only a dream.
The apps will still crash; the OS and the machine should be left completely uneffected and recover 100% gracefully with the user knowing or detecting any system instability.
I believe thats what a "compeltely stable machine" is. You admitted Linux is not there yet either.
>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.
When XP comes out, see if you can get a copy at work, and try some of this stuff out. Its a great OS.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only