Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga UNIX Message-ID: <6718@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 7 Oct 90 01:40:45 GMT References: <1238@acf5.NYU.EDU> <1990Sep23.200522.29223@ecst.csuchico.edu> <31557@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 20 In article <31557@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: > Actually, I refer you to [a bunch of BSD bugs] A. BSD is known to be buggier than a dog pound. System V is really more robust... and that's what Amiga UNIX is based on. B. Notice that none of the bugs you listed involve rebooting the machine to correct them. There's a big difference between temporarily having a mailbox locked and dumping the whole system and anything you're working on. We have 40 Xenix boxes running on 80286es (well, 386es in 286 mode). This Xenix is System III based, and is buggier than BSD. And yet we have very few crashes... most of which are due to a known bug in a no longer supported device driver. Third party buggy software, in other words. We only have to worry about device drivers. On the Amiga all software is dangerous. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .