Bruce writes:

> Wirt Atmar writes:
>
>  >I wasn't going to respond to this thread simply because such threads tend
to
>  >degenerate into one-upmanship, but John's comments have changed my mind.
>
>  It was not my intent to start a one-upsmanship content, so perhaps my
>  post was a bit obtuse.
>
>  I did want to provide a data point to help answer the question of what
>  defines an OS that is ready for mission-critical applications. For many
>  shops, being up for an entire year is undesirable: I didn't install any
>  software updates in the year, for example, and so had to forego a number
>  of new features.
>
>  I apologize if anyone took offense at the terse nature of the original
>  post.

No, no, no! I took absolutely no offense at Bruce's post -- and in return I
certainly didn't mean to offend Bruce himself. Complete miscommunication every
so often is part and parcel of the nature of the internet. I just didn't want
to start a "mine has been up longer than yours"-type contest, especially now
that some people are beginning to mention e-mail congestion more frequently of
late.

Instead, let me say quite the opposite. Based on carefully listening to what
Bruce has had to say over the last four years or so, until further notice, I
am in full agreement with whatever Bruce has to say in the future. His
viewpoint has almost always been very similar to mine (for whatever that's
worth) -- and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

>  I also wanted to point out that the "zero admin" hype coming from Intel
>  and Microsoft is just that: hype about unproven, unreleased technology.
>  MPE/iX implements zero-admin *today* when necessary, and in an
>  environment that doesn't coddle the OS to avoid upsetting it.

Amen.

Wirt Atmar