From: bill.dehaan@canrem.com (bill dehaan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: what crash...
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <g!!n!0k.jeffc@netcom.com>, jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
writes:

[re: programs as children of PMSHELL]

JC>No, they are not and they shouldn't and normally don't die.  There is
JC>no such thing as a zombie process in OS/2, and what does it mean for a
JC>thread to "escape" anyway?

I run PSPM for OS/2, and I see "zombie" in the lists all the time.  When
a new process starts, but before the name space is allocated in whatever
system tables are required, the new process is a zombie.

JC>If an application locks up the input queue, this has NOTHING to do with
JC>the shell.  It's not the fault of WPS if an app misbehaves.  Anyway,
JC>typing CTRL-ESC and waiting a minute will usually unlock the system
JC>and allow you to kill the application.

We find that the  WPS is the app  that misbehaves the most.  And we have
seen so many instances  where a DOS or  PM program can crash  the entire
desktop instantly that we consider the OS/2's "crash proof (tm)" feature
to be useless. How can you advertise something as crash-proof, promoting
the fact that applications are  protected from each other, and  then die
when one app takes out another? To say it's the applications fault is to
put a lie to  all of OS/2's claims  - those being specifically  that the
operating  system  isolates  applications  and  protects  them from each
other.

>Yup. The problem  now is that  WPS is still  unstable, so therefore  the
>entire OS is unstable. The chain is only as strong as the weakest  link,
>etc. etc...

JC>The shell is not part of the OS, so this is a meaningless statement.

Not really. I have two  departments who just dropped using  OS/2 because
of the  instability of  WPS. Their  systems crash  an _average_  of four
times  a  day.  Given  that  a  reboot  takes  20  minutes,  this   cuts
productivity by 75%! That's not meaningless at all.

JC>The OS is not unstable, regardless of the stability of the shell being used.

Your statement would be correct, except  that there is no choice BUT  to
use the WPS.

JC>If it appears I'm playing semantical word games, sorry, but the "entire OS"
JC>simply does not include the shell, which can be ANY PM program.  The user
JC>interface may be unstable, but that does not mean the OS is unstable.

I agree. It's  semantics. How's about  this: the entire  OS/2 "operating
environment is unstable and unusable  at this time" is a  statement that
still allows IBM to  brag about rock-solid multi-tasking,  "crash proof"
architecture, and still describe the buggy, unusable system that  people
are encountering.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
___
 * MR/2 1.2x NR * IBM: Intimidated By Microsoft
                                                                                
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:3991 comp.os.os2.misc:27409