Mike Davison wrote:
>
> <soapbox on>
>
> Hmmm... I'll disagree. Linux, and other operating systems that support
> protected memory models are more reliable than operating systems that
> use a shared memory model, like Windows and MacOS. In the latter case,
> an misbehaving program can crash the system. In the protected-memory
> case, it is almost impossible for a lousy program to crash the whole
> box. That is why Linux is more reliable than Windows.
>
> The size of the kernel and the open review process are both helpful
> in keeping Linux reliable, but the underlying memory-management
> architecture is much more critical to Linux's reliablity.
>
> <soapbox off>
Mike,
Could you spare a few ones and zeroes and explain the difference between a
"protected memory model"
and a "shared memory model"? When I went to Windows/95 and Windows/NT school, much
was made out of
the fact that all processes within the OS had their own unique memory address space,
but that the
upper half of memory was devoted to the kernel and was shared. VMS uses the same
model (Microsoft's
innovation: moving the VMS memory model from the VAX to the 80386. Big whoop), and
VMS is
considered a rock solid OS. But now you tell me that Windows is actually sharing
memory, I assume
between processes. I don't understand.
>
> In any case, Linux has proven itself to be much more reliable than the
> operating systems produced at Microsoft. (And Apple, but most folks
> don't care about Apple.) It should be interesting to see how reliable
> Windows 2000/NT ends up being as it is a protected-memory architecture
> and _should_ be as reliable as Linux. We'll see.
This is true.
>
> Mike
Many thanks,
--
Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software engineer, husband,
father etc.
See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
