Slashdot Mirror
Why Do Computers Still Crash?
geoff lane asks: "I've used computers for about 30 years and over that time their hardware reliability has improved (but not that much), but their software reliability has remained largely unchanged. Sometimes a company gets it right -- my Psion 3a has never crashed despite being switched on and in use for over five years, but my shiny new Zaurus crashed within a month of purchase (a hard reset losing all data was required to get it running again). Of course, there's no need to mention Microsoft's inability to create a stable system. So, why are modern operating systems still unable to deal with and recover from problems? Is the need for speed preventing the use of reliable software design techniques? Or is modern software just so complex that there is always another unexpected interaction that's not understood and not planned for? Are we using the wrong tools (such as C) which do not provide the facilities necessary to write safe software?" If we were to make computer crashes a thing of the past, what would we have to do, both in our software and in our operating systems, to make this come to pass?
Are we using the wrong tools (such as C) which do not provide the facilities necessary to write safe software?
Absolutely. People should write in Modula-3: safe, efficient and productive. But that doesn't impress your average hairy-chested programmer who needs to prove how smart he is. For him, programming was meant to be hard and bugs can't be avoided. Both are untrue. They just feel more secure in concrete representations rather than constrained abstract models. They'd rather have control than efficiency becuase they have a psychological need for (total) control.
Most programmers are pathetic, inadequate human beings really.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Too bad there are so many things you can't do when you've crippled your hardware with an OS with so few apps.
I mean, you can't do much except play back multimedia, there's seldom any games you can play on it.
I liken it to a rock in the middle of a field. Damned stable, that rock. It just sits there.
"Why Do Computers Still Crash?"
Micro$oft.
Yes I agree. Now comparing XP to Unix from say 1987 would prehaps be fair to XP.
Clever...
I'm sure Dave Cutler or another UNIX guru from the late 80s would agree with you, oh wait, he was one of the OS architects of NT that designed it to be something better than UNIX.
Glad he was at least knowledgeable to realize the shortcomings of the UNIX architecture to reject it when MS set out to build the next generation OS architecture.
There are so many features of the NT core (even the original 1992 3.1 version) that have yet to be implemented in most *nix variants(like Linux or BSD) it would make a fun debate, but with the spelling errors and nature of your post, I don't think you are someone that would add much to such a debate.
Just another troll that has no clue about OS architecture (argh MS Bad, everything else good, fire bad, argh), nice to see the Slashdot posts haven't improved any...
Geesh