From: Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:04:07PM -0600, Gabriel Sechan spake thusly:
> To me Palm is a good example of why persistant OSes are BAD.
To me Palm is a good example of why unreliable OSes are bad.
Anything humanity has ever made, or will ever make, is unreliable. People
make mistakes. People don't know things (in some cases because the things
they don't know have yet to be discovered/invented) that end up making good
decisions into mistakes. Peopel cannot foresee the future and see all the
consequences of a decision. Due to this, the idea of anything ever truely
being more than relatively reliable is laughable. Thus the trick is to make
the cost of failures in reliability as low as possible. Windows actually
does a good job of this- reliability failure requires a reboot. Linux does
a better job- most failures can be fixed by restarting a single daemon,
others can be fixed with a reboot. A persistant OS would have problems ever
getting fixed if it goes into a bad state. This is a critical flaw in the
idea.
Gabe
--
KPLUG-List mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
