Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aglew From: aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: RISC vs. CISC? No, OS bug executing data... Message-ID: Date: 18 Sep 90 22:47:46 GMT References: <26507@mimsy.umd.edu> <3334@bnr-rsc.UUCP> <4077@auspex.auspex.com> <69658@sgi.sgi.com> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com's message of 18 Sep 90 22:29:33 GMT >>On the other hand, it might be cheaper to replace a chip than to upgrade OS... >>:-( > >What's the smiley for? It really is far easier and faster to replace a >socketed chip than to install a new OS release on a UNIX system. Wasn't a smiley. Was a frowny. Now it's a frowny with a wrinkled forehead. This is a smiley: :-) >A long time ago, it probably was true that software problems were not very >expensive to correct after shipment. But now, it's a significant expense. >But we still design computer systems on the assumption that there'll be a >lot of new OS releases. Still, an OS fix can be cheaper than an engineering change to all existing boards of a system. (I've been there). >In any other industry, they wouldn't be called "releases". They'd be >"recalls". Bug fixes are comparable to recalls, yes. But what about enhancements? Like providing NFS on a system that formerly did not have it? -- Andy Glew, a-glew@uiuc.edu [get ph nameserver from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:net/qi]