Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Non-Intel Minix?
Message-ID: <8021@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-May-87 22:08:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.8021
Posted: Tue May 12 22:08:51 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 12-May-87 22:08:51 EDT
References: <132200005@convexs> <5129@beta.UUCP>, <353@hqda-ai.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

> ... GNU will be
> much more robust than Minix, since it is intended to be used, not
> studied...

Change that to "GNU is *intended* to be much more robust..." and I'll go
along with it.  Intention to use is no guarantee of robustness, as witness
a whole lot of current software.  GNU may well score higher on robustness,
but asserting that this is automatically and inherently so is hubris, to put
it mildly.

Try moving any of the GNU stuff to a non-32-bit machine if you want to learn
about robustness; my understanding is that it's likely to be, uh, a Really
Interesting Experience.

> ... GNU Emacs.  This last is the
> best editor I have ever seen on any computer.

Also the biggest, and the slowest to start up, although it's okay if you
have enough memory for it and just leave it running all the time.  Full GNU
will need truly enormous main memories if this pattern holds...
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry