donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner) (03/24/89)
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
jbw@bucsb.UUCP (Joe Wells) (03/25/89)
In article <2927@kalliope.rice.edu> donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner) writes: >In article <2044> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >(in response to a comment from Chris Torek) ^^^^^^^^^^^ [much flaming deleted] The original response to Erin Filbert was by Doug Gwyn, not Chris Torek. Chris Torek is usually much more polite than that. You can check this by looking at the References: header line. -- Joe Wells INTERNET: jbw%bucsf.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu IP: [128.197.10.201] UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsf!jbw
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/25/89)
In article <2927@kalliope.rice.edu> donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner) writes: >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). No user-mode program should be able to crash the system, so you can't blame the compiler. Your implication is that an assembler program IS permitted to crash the system (since the output of the compiler is something that could also have been generated by a properly working assembler), and this is obviously silly. If proper operation of the OS requires certain hardware fixtures (such as an appropriate model of MMU) that the user has not installed, then this can be a valid excuse for a user program being able to crash the system. But it would be nice if the OS checked for this and warned "Warning! Incorrect MMU installed, incorrect programs may cause system crash." Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (03/26/89)
In article <2927@kalliope.rice.edu> donn@titan.rice.edu (Donn Baumgartner) claims that: >In article <2044> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes something >(in response to a comment from Chris Torek) but the coment was in fact made by Doug Gwyn. (See References: line.) I keep my opinion of the 80286 to myself. . . . :-) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris