Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!titan!donn
From: donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: bashing (was:  Re: C bug causes double panic)
Keywords: opinions & flames
Message-ID: <2927@kalliope.rice.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 89 23:47:52 GMT
References: <244@tree.UUCP> <9884@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2044@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <13866@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Reply-To: donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 57

In article <2044> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes:
(in response to a comment from Chris Torek)
>>And you will probably get a flood of responses correctly pointing out
>>that what you say is irrelevent.  The original message mentioned that
>>he "crashed the entire system" by running this program (calling it
>>a "double fault" rather than "double panic"; which may have misled you).
>>It doesn't matter that the C program has a bug, it still shouldn't
>>crash the operating system.

Well, a C program shouldn't be able to crash the system, but one cannot blame
the operating system for a mess-up on the compiler's part (or lack or the
appropriate hardware on the user's part - perhaps).

In article <13866> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) replied:
>Some of us wizards would have shrugged the entire episode off with
>a ``get a real CPU'' remark.

Mr. Haugh has been promoted to wizard, I see.  (arrogance only gets a 1/2 :-)
He continues with:
>The 80286 does have problems.  I doubt that a fully functional and
>robust operating system for an 80286 can ever be had.  The chip
>is brain dead and a waste of good silicon.  Various modes of failure
>cause the program to be completely aborted, and if that program
>happens to be your operating system, tough luck.

The 1st sentence is at least partially (of all processors), the 2nd is at best
unfounded opinion, and the 3rd blatant bigotry.  The 4th is again true of all
processors and systems.

Mr. Messer completed his flame with:
>>A true wizard carefully reads the question so that he might answer the
>>question actually asked, rather than just say the first thing that comes
>>to mind.

... which is unfounded, uncalled for, and envy at it's worst.  Mr. Messer,
you are out of line (perhaps you too think yourself a 'true' wizard?).

Mr. Haugh further speaks his flaming opinion:
>Some of that too.  Others of us are disgusted with bogus hardware.
>The 80286 is such an example of a total loser implemented on silicon.
>Intel created the 286 to keep programmers humble, not to be used
>for anything productive.

Save the flame-processors-war for somewhere else... the perfect processor
simply cannot exist (too many opinionated people around - like myself).  By
many people's arguments, anything less than "today's favorite processor" is
a total loser - such is Mr. Haugh's argument.  Sure, I'm biased because I'm
working on the 4.3 BSD port to the 286 processor, and so naturally I tend to
disagree that the processor is worthless.  Indeed, compared to it's ancestors
it is rather nice... and some of it's successors are better (as are many other
processors available today).  But the 286 is here, it's inexpensive, and it
*already* has some rather nice operating systems on it - several of which are
just peachy (even if they're not 4.3 BSD).  Mr. Haugh, restrain yourself.

						Donn Baumgartner
						ATbsd Project Coordinator
						donn@rice.edu