Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-25,: Re: Fw: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture.

# Re: Fw: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture.

Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk)
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:10:24 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Malcolm Beattie: "Re: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture."
- Previous message: Otel Florian-Daniel: "Re: version.h in 2.2.10"

shapj@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > Persistence is a curse, not a benefit, when applied to these things.
>
> We haven't found that to be true, and I'ld be interested to learn why you feel
> it is so. To the application, things appear no different than if the connection
> to the device was severed by (e.g.) a network failure.

But isn't that the problem: the application may have done things in a
previous lifetime that caused changes at the other end of the connection
that it is now unaware of.

However, it seems to me that this is no worse than what happens if the
application simply crashes, and in many ways better. Something I've
forgotten about EROS: can an application force a checkpoint? If so, then
I can't see how it can be in any way worse.

Cheers,

Ben.

    --
    http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

    "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
    who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
    first group; there was less competition there."
         - Indira Gandhi

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Malcolm Beattie: "Re: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture."
- Previous message: Otel Florian-Daniel: "Re: version.h in 2.2.10"