🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1587@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) writes:
> No, relying on bug free programs for correct system operation
> is just bad design.  Bugs exist.

The Amiga hardware and software both rely on bug free programs for
correct system operation, and the only way to change that would be
to replace the hardware and the software.  It's not "bad design",
it's just one of the many levels of protection that can be put in
a system.  There are other systems out there if this one is not
up to your standards.

> 						I would say that we
> probably don't want to get into general argument checking, but simple, 
> fairly low rate of occurance calls can be checked: Open*/Close* 
> operations are always good candidates for checking.

No matter how much we talk about this, it will not become possible with
the current semantics of libraries.  Many people taking part in this
discussion don't seem to have realized yet that: (A) when an opencount
goes negative, it is not possible to determine what program did more
closes than opens, and (B) when this bug occurs, it is not possible to
detect any anomaly in the opencount until AFTER the system has been
subject to corruption for an unpredictable amount of time.

Even if library usage were redesigned to be bullet-proof, what would
be gained?  There are bil-yuns and bil-yuns of ways to crash an Amiga.
How many of them (and which ones) should be silently ignored when they
are detected?

As far as "public image" is concerned, is it better to say

	"Fatal error; system halted"

		or

	"System error; some or all of your data may be destroyed
	if you continue..."?

I think the first answer will result in programs being fixed, and the
second answer will result in a lot of people afraid to use the computer.
-- 
					-=] Ford [=-

	.		.		(In Real Life: Mike Ditto)
.	    :	       ,		ford@kenobi.cts.com
This space under construction,		...!ucsd!elgar!ford
pardon our dust.			ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com