> From: Richard S. Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't know. I have trouble believing that Windows 3,553,221,332,098 > would be any more stable than anything we have now. And we have long known > that every time someone creates an idiot-proof system, God goes and creates > a better idiot. In other words, Galactic digital cognition is probably not > infallible. Windows 2000 is really quite good. Linux is good too, (and it is _still_ inferior to the least powerful commercial unix). But that is not the issue. You create a significantly advanced (and probably slightly bug prone) system that is designed to make a better system. That system should hopefully be bug free (if the original programmers didn't f%&^ up severely). That system in turn creates an even more advanced system that should be even more bug free (because computers are not prone to the kinds of mistakes that humans make). Even if that system was just a pure rewrite of itself, that should be enough to create a perfect system within a few iterations. Run the system for a few hundred thousand iterations (just to be sure) and you would have a system that became infalliable. Also that system would become more and more efficient with each iteration. > > Hey, an analogy just occurred to me. > > Jophur = Microsoft executives > G'Kek = Open source development community >
