From: jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:15:46 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Hacker's Anonymous

In article <1992Aug18.2712.3824@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>In message <1992Aug11.190655.27153#microsoft.com>, craigdo@microsoft.com
>(Craig Dowell) writes:
>
>CD>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
>CD>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
>CD>the shell dies?
>
>Yes, they  are children  of the  shell, and  they _should_  die when the
>shell croaks,  but not  always. Often,  some threads  will "escape", and
>take on a life of their own (or maybe unlife, since we're talking  about
>zombie processes).
>

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

>CD>Doesn't this mean I loose work when the shell dies?  I look at it as
>CD>more of a binary thing:  If I don't loose work, I'm happy.  If I loose
>CD>work I'm not happy.  I consider these arguments regarding how much of
>CD>the system is crashing, specious.  Telling me that this box is better
>CD>because the kernel keeps running, essentially "yes, you lost that six
>CD>hours work, but look at this, your download of mandog.gif is still
>CD>running" is bizarre.
>
>I agree  totally. This  is the  point that  I was  making. Talking about
>OS/2's "crash proof" architecture, and then dismissing repeated  crashes
>as "oh, that's  the shell, OS/2's  still running" is  specious, at best.
>When I was working at IBM I had to repeatedly point out that other  than
>the actual developers, nobody CARES  if the kernel is still  running and
>your onscreen clock survives after the application locks the input queue
>and your system ignores system input.
>

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

>CD>I can understand keeping applications away from one another, so that
>CD>an app cannot kill the shell or other apps.  I can't understand this
>CD>explaining away WPS crashes.  It doesn't matter whether its DOS - Windows
>CD>or OS/2 - WPS, the _combination_ must be reliable -- as the original
>CD>poster mentions.  (The aps must be considered in this too, but this
>CD>is an os group after all)
>
>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...
>

The shell is not part of the OS, so this is a meaningless statement.
The OS is not unstable, regardless of the stability of the shell being used.
If it appears I'm playing semantical word games, sorry, but the "entire OS"
simply does not include the shell, which can be ANY PM program.  The user
interface may be unstable, but that does not mean the OS is unstable.

>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
>Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>---
> ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Psychics will lead dogs to your body.
>--
>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.
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy