What most ordinary users want is that it ALWAYS works. In engineering terms I would say this could be expressed as mean time to failure of 50 years. I'll say systems are reliable enough when no person I know personally has ever experienced a system crash.
> Ez de mesés volna.
In this LinuxFR interview with Linus (http://linuxfr.org/nodes/85904/comments/1230981) he gave his opinion on microkernels:
"I'm still convinced that it's one of those ideas that sounds nice on paper, but ends up being a failure in practice, because in real life the real complexity is in the interactions, not in the individual modules. And microkernels strive to make the modules more independent, making the interactions more indirect and complicated. The separation essentially ends up also cutting a lot of obvious and direct communication channels".
What do you think about this answer?
Andrew Tanenbaum : I don't buy it. He is speculating about something he knows nothing about. Our modules are extremely well defined because they run in separate address spaces. If you want to change the memory manager, only one module is affected. Changing it in Linux is far more complicated because it is all spaghetti down there.
> Ez meg egyszerűen zseniálisan aranyos.
> Engem nem győzött meg Andrew bácsi, de drukkolok neki.