From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-22 04:00:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!4.24.21.153!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Quality systems (Was: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada
 mandate, and why it collapsed and died))
Date: 22 May 2003 06:00:06 -0500
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <bNuxBNMk4BSq@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com>
 <b9gko2$pub@library1.airnews.net>
 <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com>
 <dstanbro-DDA263.20492210052003@mec2.bigpond.net.au>
 <ZpGva.13$1Q1.6@read3.inet.fi>
 <7507f79d.0305121629.5b8b7369@posting.google.com>
 <ln0wa.54$a03.44@read3.inet.fi>
 <9fa75d42.0305130643.526f61c2@posting.google.com>
 <nNmdnZ46ROWIwFyjXTWcqg@gbronline.com>
 <9fa75d42.0305140436.534f7151@posting.google.com>
 <ba067m$iph$1@south.jnrs.ja.net> <9fa75d42.0305160440.7846d1Organization: LJK
 Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1053601142 7941 192.135.80.34 (22 May 2003
 10:59:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:59:02 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37635
Date: 2003-05-22T06:00:06-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3ecca391$1@news.wineasy.se>, "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@akerkvaerner.com> writes:
> Marin David Condic wrote:
>> True, but with an OS this is achievable. It is possible to build an OS
> that
>> won't crash because of the particular application being run on it. (Or at
>> least crash so infrequently as to be practically the same thing).
> 
> I know of no operating system which does not crash because of application
> behaviour. Some does so more seldom than others, but they still do.

Are you saying that operating systems survive longer if you don't use them ?

Or are you saying there is generally _specific_ application behavior that
can trigger a crash ?

24 years ago there was a magic sequence I could type on the console to
provoke (unintended) crashes.  Seven versions later, that is now gone,
and most of the crashes I read about (but do not experience myself) are
exotic race conditions that might not be encountered with zero load,
but certainly are not a direct response to any particular application
activity.