Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: True Multitasking Message-ID: Date: 31 Jan 91 01:39:03 GMT References: <42598@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <678@tnc.UUCP> <1991Jan27.100824.6629@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Jan28.220234.29712@NCoast.ORG> <694@tnc.UUCP> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: m0154@tnc.UUCP's message of 30 Jan 91 21:26:37 GMT In article <694@tnc.UUCP> m0154@tnc.UUCP (GUY GARNETT) writes: >>When a 1 line C program can bring down the system...... > Gee, I guess this also includes Unix, Xenix, MS-DOS, and the >Mac too, right? How about a 2-line FORTRAN program crashing an IBM 3083? I've done it; every operating system has its weakness, you simply have to try harder with some than with others. The difference is that on Unix & the IBM, this is considered a bug in the OS, and you have some hope of getting people to fix it. On the Amiga/Mac/MS-DOS, it's a bug in the application (even if the application meant to do it), and there's no way anyone is going to fix it. That's one reasonable definition of "real" computers - that the system crashing is considered to a system problem, and not an application problem.