Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED.mparhJFQftX+DxamYS9Llw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:57:14 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mparhJFQftX+DxamYS9Llw.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Content-Language: en-GB Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:70397 Op 11.dec..2019 om 12:20 schreef boltar@nowhere.co.uk: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:13:44 -0800 (PST) > James Kuyper wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 4:50:06 AM UTC-5, bol...@nowhere.co.uk >> wrote: >> .... >>> Perhaps I was spoilt - I went straight from 8 bit at home to unix at >> university >>> so I was used to using HP-UX and Solaris at 21. Then I was introduced to >>> Windows. It was like going from a Ferrari to a Lada and NT didn't nothing to >>> dispel that imagine. It crashed, it had to rebooted once a week as it had >>> a serious memory leak issues and it was a slow as a dog. If that was a breath >> >>> of fresh air then god knows what you were breathing beforehand. >> >> As I remember it, NT almost never crashed, but I'm not sure what I meant >> by "almost never" when I formed that memory. Windows 3.1 typically >> crashed several times per day for me, so a weekly crash might have felt >> like "almost never" by comparison. >> >> Like you, my experience with Unix pre-dated my experience with either >> DOS or Windows, and those Unix systems were very reliable. However, >> those systems were mainframes being maintained by professional >> sysadmins; I would not have dreamed of expecting the same reliability >>from a desktop machine that I maintained myself. > > The basic reliability of an OS should be independant of how well or otherwise > its administered so longs as patches are installed. > The reliability also depends on the amount of (third-party, cheap) hardware used in those systems. Those early Unix systems supported far less hardware. There is a reason why Microsoft later introduced Microsoft certified drivers. I was used to VMS systems. I remembered how in that time the same argument was used against Unix and pro VMS. When later-on Linux started to supported the same hardware as Windows, I also saw "kernel panic" very often. (But it was not blue. :-)