On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Peter Viscarola wrote:
So… my thesis is: Instead of trying to change the behavior - which
requires changing an entire industry - why not just change the consequence
of bad behavior to make it less severe? This requires making the change in
1 place (the O/S) instead of trying to police every single driver.That’s not just good sense?
Not if the result is an OS that’s too slow to do the things I need the OS
to do.
I do not want a machine that has drivers that crash.
However, a machine with crashy drivers that works 99.9% of the time is
more useful to me than a machine that simply isn’t up to the job I have
for it.
Stability should come first – but only to a point. If the choice were
between a machine that had relative performance 1 and which had fatal OS
crashes once a month, and a machine which had relative performance 0.8,
but no fatal OS crashes, I’d pick the first machine. Why? Because the
extra performance is valuable. More valuable than the 3 minutes I lose
once a month due to rebooting.
I don’t think the decision is as clear cut as you make out.
–
Peter xxxxx@inkvine.fluff.org
http://www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/
logic kicks ass:
(1) Horses have an even number of legs.
(2) They have two legs in back and fore legs in front.
(3) This makes a total of six legs, which certainly is an odd number of
legs for a horse.
(4) But the only number that is both odd and even is infinity.
(5) Therefore, horses must have an infinite number of legs.