>>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.

If once in four years can be considered "occasionally".

>
>>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.

Since September, 1997, that is EXACTLY what happens on my Linux box, more time than I can remember. Alpha and beta apps do frequently crash, ya know, and sometimes released apps crash. In fact, between May and September of 1997, IIRC, I did not experience an OS crash. The one crash I did have was self-inflicted by my own C++ code, requiring a reset. The OS didn't technically crash...no memory corruption, lost pointers, etc..., just a keyboard infinate loop lockout.

>
>I believe thats what a "compeltely stable machine" is. You admitted Linux is not there yet either.

Not so fast, Mike. I made no such admission or can such be implied. In fact, to avoid misunderstandings, I will assert that the Linux OS IS there.

>
>>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.

Well, even W2K is alright. While I have about one crash a week with it, as a programmer you realize that we flex PCs beyone what the average user does. I know of some non-technical users who have used W2K for months without a problems, but they don't leave their box on 24/7 the way I do and run nightly batch processes. However, my boss (non-techie) has W2K on his laptop at home and can't keep it running for a single day without crashing. But, I think a well setup W2K on good hardware is more than acceptable as a platform. If XP is more stable than W2K, and can be operated without giving a DNA sample :), it may keep a lot of people from defecting to Linux.

Time will tell.