[X Newbies] OS stability - was Re: [X Newbies] Crashing of text editor?

[Alex]

On Tuesday, Mar 30, 2004, at 09:08 Canada/Eastern, marina wrote:

> On Monday, Mar 29, 2004, at 12:55 Canada/Eastern, Charles Martin wrote:
>>> [...] Mac OS X is not supposed to crash *at all.* As in *ever.*
>
> and Alex commented:
>
>> C'mon. That's absurd.
>
> Believe it or not, it's not "absurd".

Of course it is. Re-read my explanation as to why.

> There are plenty of examples of
> computer systems that *do not crash*, full stop.

Perhaps -- but, could you mention just a few out of your plenitude of 
examples? (Feel free to refer to 
<http://cliki.tunes.org/Operating%20Systems>.) Furthermore, assuming 
it's true, how does that prove the soundness of the statement "Mac OS X 
is not supposed to crash *at all.* As in *ever.*"?

> [...] some OS's are more stable and robust than others - so much so,
> that some simply do not crash.

Some OSs are more robust, yes. From that to "not crash at all" it's 
quite a stretch. But, again, assuming it to be true, how does that 
prove the soundness of the statement "Mac OS X is not supposed to crash 
*at all.* As in *ever.*"?

> Example - we have a local network server, running FreeBSD (which is 
> where
> Darwin comes from).

First, let's get a few things straight. Darwin is not the same thing as 
Mac OS X. And the fact that Darwin is based on FreeBSD doesn't 
necessarily imply that it shares all its features. (Btw, while you have 
to pay for Mac OS X, Darwin can be freely downloaded from Apple, and 
even installed on some x86 machines.)

Second, the fact that you have _one_ machine running FreeBSD without 
crashing doesn't mean that FreeBSD (which can hardly be described as a 
"consumer OS") never crashes. My SOHO voice mail, fax, and print server 
is a Win 98 laptop. It hasn't crashed once since I set it up about 18 
months ago, and, of course it's always on. So what? Am I supposed to 
conclude that Win 98 systems "*do not crash*, full stop"?

Third, even if FreeBSD never crashed, it would still be irrelevant to 
the soundness of the statement "Mac OS X is not supposed to crash *at 
all.* As in *ever.*"?

> [...] the fact that PC users have grown accustomed to blue screens of 
> deaths
> and unexpected failures is not, and should never be taken as a sign of 
> what
> computers *in general* are. It is, in my opinion, simply a sign of how 
> easy
> it is to lower the standards when one has the monopoly of the market.

That may (or may not) be true, but how is it relevant to "Mac OS X is 
not supposed to crash *at all.* As in *ever.*" and "OS X is a quantum 
leap above all other consumer OSes"?

f