From: jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:45:53 GMT
Organization: Hacker's Anonymous
Distribution: comp

In article <1992Aug21.2712.3944@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>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.
>

There is no such thing as a zombie process in OS/2.  The author of PSPM
may have defined something as "zombie", but that does not make it so.
In UNIX, a zombie process is specifically a process that has died but
not yet "waited" on by its parent.  OS/2 does not work this way.  I find
it odd that the term zombie is applied to a process in the process of
being born, rather than in the process of being killed.

>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.
>

If this is truly happening, then it's a bug.  You have acknowledged 
elsewhere that IBM has accepted APARs on this behavior and is trying
to fix it.  The difference is that in OS/2, this behavior IS a bug, and
is not considered to merely be working as designed.

>>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.
>

20 minutes??????  I'd love to know why it takes 20 minutes to reboot
your systems.  And 75%!  Let see, 20 minutes times 4 divided by 8 hours
is.....  But still, any downtime is unacceptable, and it does appear that
IBM is taking your problems seriously.

>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.
>

Nonsense.  As I stated in the bit you quoted below, ANY PRESENTATION
MANAGER PROGRAM CAN BE THE SHELL.  All it takes is a one line change in 
CONFIG.SYS.  Why don't you believe me?

>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.
>

I disagree.  How can 'rock-solid, "crash-proof"' describe the 'unstable and
unusable operating environment' you're 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


-- 

==============================================================================
Jeff Cohen         | Standard disclaimer:  My views are my own and may or may
jeffc@netcom.com   |                       not represent the views of IBM.
==============================================================================