Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!olivea!uunet!bria!mike
From: mike@bria.UUCP (mike.stefanik)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Kernel core dumps (was Re: out of swap space??)
Message-ID: <254@bria.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 91 22:57:03 GMT
References: <1991Apr23.214037.16410@netcom.COM> <1991Apr24.165943.7202@rfengr.com> <450@bartal.BARTAL.COM> <9105031411.aa04050@art-sy.detroit.mi.us> <1991May4.151538.8903@sequent.com>
Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike
Organization: MGI Group International, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 19

In an article, vandys@sequent.com (Andrew Valencia) writes:
|This is the heart of the matter.  IMHO, SCO has done a pretty good job
|of hammering their product into a state where it just runs and runs and runs
|with little ado.  If you had a choice between a system that had a very nice and
|powerful crash dumping and analysis system, and one that simply didn't crash in
|the first place, which would you pick?

Where is this mythical beast that SCO has given birth to?  Yes, the one
that "simply doesn't crash in the first place"?  Could you please enlighten
me as to what unique version of the operating system that you are using?

There is never any good excuse for any operating system to be without
the ability to dump itself when it crashes.  It is laziness, pure and simple.

-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc, Los Angeles | Opinions stated are never realistic
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If MS-DOS didn't exist, who would UNIX programmers have to make fun of?