home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:8527 comp.os.os2.misc:36764
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!csservices!tyrolia!mg
- From: mg@tyrolia (Michael Golan)
- Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
- Message-ID: <mg.721965321@tyrolia>
- Sender: news@csservices.Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
- Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
- References: <1992Nov13.164155.14309@msc.cornell.edu> <gnash.721870994@ee.uts.EDU.AU> <BxsoLo.qF@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> <1992Nov16.164438.27020@njitgw.njit.edu>
- Date: 17 Nov 92 01:55:21 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
-
- >This will kill any Unix system:
- > while (1) fork();
-
- Oh please. Why dont you go try it. None of the modern Unix systems I know
- of would crash. They will slow down, but will be usable. How many processes
- a user is allowed to fork is a system paramater. Just because most systems
- are setup so that any single user can use a large chunk of the resource
- is not a fault in the design in the OS, nor a bug, nor a crash.
- Your friendly system administrator would be happy to stop all of these jobs
- and then nuke em.
-
- As for OS/2, it sucks big time. Bad dos programs with stray pointers crash
- it often. I develop DOS applications and when I am doing heavy debugging
- I tend to reboot OS/2 every few hours. It is just god damn buggy and it seems
- IBM can't get it right. I have not yet tried the CSD, I can't get it yet.
- Besides, it seems the CSD adds as many bugs as it fixes.
- (Dont even think about telling me to waste my time downloading 14 diskettes)
-
- Michael Golan
- mg@princeton.edu
-
-
-