<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Creighton Hogg</b> <<a href="mailto:wchogg@gmail.com">wchogg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br><div><span class="q"><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrew Coppin</b> <<a href="mailto:andrewcoppin@btinternet.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
andrewcoppin@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:</span></span><span class="q"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Creighton Hogg wrote:<br>><br>> There are lots of things to like about Linux. It doesn't cost money.<br>> It's fast. It's reliable. It's flexible. It's secure.<br>><br>><br>> Okay, I'm not sure if I'd agree with the reliable & secure points. I
<br>> mean, relative to what could be done. I'm a rank amateur when it<br>> comes to OS work but when I've looked at recent papers Linux really<br>> isn't that cutting edge. I mean, it may be reliable in comparison to
<br>> Windows 98 & has less known exploits than any Windows system, but in<br>> terms of how good it *could* be I think there's an awful lot of room<br>> for growth.<br><br>Isn't there a lot of room for improvement in *any* product?
</blockquote></span><div><br>Well, I'm not just talking about improvement. I'm talking about things like capabilities, self-healing kernels, separation kernels, exo kernels, things that may have serious advantages but can't necessarily be strapped on to a preexisting kernel such as Linux.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Bah. Of course after I say this I get a bad feeling, so I checked the interwebs and found out that there has been work on incorporating self-healing into Linux.<br></div><br></div><br>