From: tommy@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Mike Thompson,332,54714,2734927)
Subject: Re: OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Originator: tommy@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:09:13 GMT

From article <BUHR.92Nov16184637@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr):

>>  Example 2: 
>>  From programming, it is TRIVIAL to hang the OS.  Write a PM
>>  application and before starting the StdWindow, create a named pipe
>>  and wait for another process to access the pipe.  Hang city...
> 
> Clearly, this is a bug.  On the other hand, it is a rather obscure
> bug.  I think one can reasonably differentiate between a lack of
> .....
> This is a bug, not a major shortcoming.  Bugs can usually be worked
> around:  start your "StdWindow" before creating your named pipe;
> ...
> Major shortcomings aren't nearly as easy to deal with.

I would disagree strongly.  This bug, as I now understand, is related 
to the single message thread in OS/2.  In the long term, this will be 
a major limitation and weakness in making OS/2 a robust operating system
(or perhaps I should say making WPS a robust environment).

>>  try this one after loading the CSD.  SubClass the FrameWindow in a
>>  PM application to modify the RESIZE message.  Pass minimize and
>>  maximize message unchanged to original routine.  Resize works
> ....
> Report it to IBM, and it'll probably get fixed.

Let say something about support.  I paid the subscription and hourly
charges to access IBM's OS/2 bulletin board (as a developer, I really
wanted upto date information and knowledge that there might be real
developers listening).   However, I currently can't even report bugs 
to IBM through their bulletin board.  The CSD broke THEIR program
PMHPO used to access the board.  I am currently waiting for version
1.1b before I can see if these problems are already APAR's.  I would
think that inside IBM one would at least test their own support codes
before releasing an official CSD (at least a warning if they knew).

> talk to IBM and Northgate to see if you can narrow down the problem.

Northgate! - they don't want to hear of OS/2.  Said I needed an updated
BIOS and possibly motherboard (strange for a system less than 6 months
old).  Called AMI and lo/behold, we have the latest of both.  Faith in
Northgate is now ZERO, which is why I am looking for a new supplier.

IBM technical support has been very supportive, but not necessarily
helpful.  There seems to be little communication between the different
support centers.  IBM has worked hard to localize the crashes from
the TCP/IP NFS problem, and at least we know that the faults are
occuring in file read/write requests (unlikely to be memory or other
hardware problems).  However, I know long before IBM tech support of
CSD's for the TCP package.  Even on the base OS, they recently shipped
me an "updated" kernal and WPS to try by overnight mail. However, the
same day I downloaded the golden CSD which was several revisions
"newer".  (Unfortunately, neither eliminated the problems).

> In addition, realize that operating system bugs may be infuriating and
> they may fly in the face of zero-tolerance programming principles, but
> in the PC world, the relative stability of OS/2 2.0 (and *not* OS/2
> 2.1 or OS/2 2.2!) is impressive to some of us.

Finally, I will be positive for a moment.  Despite all my grumblings,
I am totally committed to OS/2.  There is no way I am returning to DOS
or Windows programming - either OS/2 makes it or I will be looking for
a real-time UNIX/MOTIF environment.  IBM did a fantastic job developing 
the code and environment.  I just hope that rash of teething problems 
will not be enough to drive off all support developers and kill the 
system before it is a year old.  As for NT, Microsoft lost all of my 
respect after fighting with them over the rash of useless FORTRAN tools
(up to and including the present version).  Even in C, I'm much more
impressed by CSET/2 than by MSC 6.1 (no reason to buy 7.0 since it
doesn't support OS/2).