[Openmcl-devel] process-run-function and mach ports usage
ron at flownet.com
Thu Feb 24 08:54:15 PST 2011
On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2011, at 14:59, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> Hold on, do you mean to say that the wisdom of the market won't make the right decision here without some sort of regulatory intervention?
> No. The market considers it fine for a few people to die. When lots of people start dying then things will get fixed, because that costs a lot of money.
> (This is, partly, a joke).
Why? This is exactly as it should be. Just because people don't like to overtly face the fact that life has a finite value doesn't change the fact.
Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is OS X we're talking about here. It's a consumer operating system. It is not marketed for use in life-and-death situations. It is not at all unreasonable for a consumer to accept having to reboot it every now and then in exchange for being able to acquire it for $100 instead of $1000.
It's actually far from clear that it is even *possible* to do much better in terms of reliability in a general purpose operating system. My poster child is the Remote Agent Executive: it was mission critical, so significant resources were expended to make it reliable: It was written in Lisp, it was formally analyzed and exhaustively tested and it *still* failed in flight. So for you people lamenting the crappiness of the Mach kernel: what exactly do you propose we (the CS community) do differently?
More information about the Openmcl-devel