Gotta chime in on this one... Quote: "Application issues, in general, shouldn't necessarily compromise the stability of the OS, though. That's why there is an OS." In a Utopian world, Neil, you're correct. In a well-coded OS, perhaps this is the case that third-party apps and drivers don't crash the OS. Windows, however, does not compartmentalize the apps and drivers as well as they should, and they do leave the OS vulnerable to poor third-party coding. How many times have you seen a poorly written driver or application BSOD a Microsoft box? I've seen it too many times to count. Just take HP printer drivers on TS as a prime example of this... But again, it's the fault of both parties as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft for not providing more of a restricted memory and access space for apps/drivers, and third-party developers for not taking time to properly debug their code. And, just as a point of comparison, I have yet to crash my Linux box in 4 years of running it...I run a number of apps regularly on it, and reboot only when I recompile the kernel. I'm not advocating one OS or vendor over another, I just think both of you have valid points when viewed from another (albeit slightly skewed) perspective. Yes, some apps leak memory, and no Microsoft's OS's don't clean up after the apps properly on all occasions. That's life. Even the programmers are human and susceptible to errors. Sometimes the errors are just too deep-rooted to easily fix. My $0.02. -Dave Melczer dmelczer@xxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: Braebaum, Neil [mailto:Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:23 AM To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: [THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucas Boyken [mailto:lboyken@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 12 June 2003 15:06 > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers > > Since we are continuing down this long and drawning out road, > Neil, let me explain myself with more clarity than I > expressed before. Micorsoft valnerability is in fact the > sheer number of applications that its OS's have been applied > towards. That doesn't make them vulnerable. OSs aren't designed around applications, per se. Rather the other way around. > Also, the number of OS's that are installed on > desktops around the world that belong to MS. Because they > have such a high share or the market, i.e. they are on so > many computers around the world that use MS OS's, this leaves > them in a precarious position. ??? How so? Doesn't it leave them in a rather strong position? > Microsoft, because more people > use their programs with a wider variety and varient of > applications and installs, has been forced to build OS's that > must appeal to wider range of users than those that > manufacture other OS's. You say "force" and "must" - don't you see? Microsoft choose such criteria as being favourable. > Thus, because they are forced to > work with a wider user base, their OS's must be able to work > with a wider range of apps. OSs aren't generally designed around working with applications *per se*. It's the other way around. > This compatibility with more and > more apps makes it inherently harder to write efficient and > clean code. I'll agree that providing backward compatibility introduces compromises. But the compatibility isn't with *apps* per se, it's with their previous incarnations of OS. And the realistic view, that customers cannot suddently dump LOB applications. > Microsoft has to continuely deal with "other > peoples problems." Do they? Microsoft attempt to deal with their own problems - but make no mistake, if there's a fault, and it's down to an application, Microsoft will certainly tell you and point you in the ISV's direction for resolution. > When someone buys an App and puts it on > their machine, they expect it to work. If it doesn't they > call up Microsoft and ask, "why not?" Some may do. Probably in the main, they'd be wrong. They didn't buy the application (assuming a non-Microsoft app) from Microsoft - therefore any issues should be via the vendor. > Therefore, this is how > I have come to this conclusion. Then there's something of a flaw in your reasoning. > Microsoft is more visable > than other OS manufactures, they have a wider client base > that is doing a greater variety of applications with its > product, Indeed. > thus they are more vulnerable to bugs, hicups, etc. > that might go unnoticed or undiscovered with other OS's. They have introduced steps, over the years with this, though. Driver evaluation, certification criteria for applications, digital certificates etc... Application issues, in general, shouldn't necessarily compromise the stability of the OS, though. That's why there is an OS. Neil ********************************************************************** Please be advised that this transmittal may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail (postmaster@xxxxxxxx) or by telephone (call us collect at 212-403-4357) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. www.wlrk.com ********************************************************************** ******************************************************** This weeks sponsor - Emergent Online 99Point9.com Designed to facilitate efficient resolution of your technical server-based questions, issues and incidents, technical support is a few mouse-clicks away: you submit your incident-specific support requests via our online support helpdesk, our certified engineers resolve them while you monitor the progress, and your systems get back to 99.9% up-time in no time. http://www.99point9.com ********************************************************** Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at: http://thethin.net/links.cfm For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link: http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm