On Friday 20 Mar 2009, Dinesh A. Joshi wrote: > Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > I thought for a moment that you were trying to be cheeky, but I > > guess you're not. I'll repeat again -- they're two completely > > unrelated concepts and deal with two completely different aspects > > of software. > > > > Adobe Photoshop not being Linux compatible, for example, does not > > make Linux unstable. An application crashing because the distro > > rushed in to get the latest kernel/glibc without proper QA > > implies instability. > > > > At least now I hope you get the difference. > > Lets talk atomicity. Either something works, or it doesn't. Debian > or 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. > > Secondly, for absolute stability you need microkernels.
Aha. Plan 9 i suppose? Or is it something even more secure. > 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. YAAAHOOOO. You finally got it. Papu cluefullness ka xjam pass ho gaya. GOD (not RMS) i believe in miracles. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
