On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Dinesh A. Joshi <[email protected]> wrote: > Lets talk atomicity. Either something works, or it doesn't. Debian or
Why do we talk atomicity all of a sudden? Do you know what it means? Do you know the context it is used in? Do you know what should be atomic and what shouldn't? Don't use words just because they sound cool. Atomicity has nothing to do with either stability or compatibility. You're beginning to sound like Ballmer -- developers developers developers ... > any distro for that matter will try its level best to get a piece of > hardware to work. If that hardware is a critical part in the functioning > of the whole system, then the system as a whole should work at all as > opposed to it crashing the system. Hardware not functioning/supported != crash. Hardware malfunctioning == crash And before you start that argument, No. malfunctioning != non-functioning. I'm not going to bother explaining to you since all you seem to be bothered with is stating your point and underlining it till your pencil point breaks. > Secondly, for absolute stability you need microkernels. This is when the > system continues to function even when internal kernel data structures > are corrupted. Why am I saying this? Point is stability is relative. End > of story. Oh man, you are simply talking crap now. Why don't you even include patents, rocket science, pigeon rank and all other high tech fundas as bases for how stability is relative? /me signs off from this pointless discussion. -- Siddhesh Poyarekar http://siddhesh.in -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
